At the risk of starting a flame war, could bans of Christians and conservatives from social media be a blessing in disguise?
Perhaps. I was just think that now that parler is gone, where would I go? And your comment made me think, maybe nowhere is best!
This is getting more serious by the hour.
Ben, I think it’s less a matter of “should Christians be on social media” and more a matter of “what room is there in American culture for Christians.”
We are at this very moment rapidly sliding down a very slippery slope, and it is not clear to me that there is any kind of obvious Schelling point where this stops.
If I’m not mistaken, every single Parler user has been doxxed as of a day or so ago. How many will lose jobs or marriages over this?
And yes, at the moment the focus is on “Trump supporters,” not “Christians,” but our blood enemies recognize no difference between our brand of Christianity and Trumpism.
6 Likes
Precisely.
And yes, many of the same people are using the words “security researchers” to describe those who hacked Parler and not only released deleted posts, but private posts and real life identities, I believe.
2 Likes
Yes, it could be a blessing in disguise in a similar way that the Jerusalem persecution was a blessing in disguise.
1 Like
I’ll add to the “amen” here. I’ve often said, when a high-profile pastor/evangelical falls, “What they think of one of us, they think of all of us”. There are no lines of distinction drawn, both out of the hardness of rebellion and the fact that such distinctions are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). May God have mercy.
I’m very happy for a contrarian position around here. That’s what this place is for: iron sharpening iron.
The issue is not whether Christian pastors like Tim should be posting publicly to as wide an audience as possible. We must do that. The issue is whether we should do it in Facebook’s living room. I think it’s dangerous for us to rely so heavily on FB because I think FB is, basically, an enemy of the church. And they not only have the ability to turn us off whenever they want to, they also control who sees what you post in the first place.
The second point you raise is about filters, and you are very dismissive of them. I don’t think you should be.
The Pharisees didn’t get along with Jesus because they were more interested in the appearance of holiness than the real thing. And Pharisees, then or now, are always threatened by actual holiness. So I understand why Christians are sensitive about putting up external barriers to sin - does that mean you are unwilling to address the heart of the matter?
But doing sensible external things to avoid danger is not necessarily in conflict with dealing with the heart. I think a good analogy for what I’m talking about is is the parapet mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:8. If you built a new house, and you didn’t put a parapet on your roof, you’re guilty of bloodshed if someone falls off.
I think the internet is analogous to that. The point is not to remove all danger, or to be hyper focused on externals. The point is to regain some sanity.
I think if you’re inclined to be dismissive of my digital parapet, you haven’t thought carefully about the information environment in which we now live. There is something new about our digital age.
7 Likes
I fail to see how 1 and 2 comport. FB gives you a very wide audience. One can make full use—profitable use, we might say—of FB without heavily relying on it, yes? The world is the enemy of the church, as is the dominant culture, yes? Why not also retreat there? I don’t think this approach stands brother. Look at the Lord with the Pharisees. He taught openly among snakes and vipers knowing full well they were always trying to trap him. They also controlled what the people saw and “posted” (Matthew 28:12-15). Enmity between the righteous and the wicked is basic to Christianity and implies constant conflict and warfare. We should follow David, who ran to the enemy with humble zeal for the Lord, and used the wicked’s tools against him (1 Samuel 17:51). Really, David is just being like the Lord Jesus here (Hebrews 2:14-15). The Apostles and Paul in particular continue the pattern; they enter into conflict, they don’t shrink back. Jonathan and his armor-bearer were idiots. Or were they? I don’t think retreat is the answer. Granted, repositioning may be necessary, regathering oneself, etc., and dealing with our own sins. But we ought to take the sword and go to war/support others as they do so. This forum is a testimony to that.
I’m not denying difficulty, the need to guard oneself, or the validity of case-by-case considerations and Christian liberty. My wife got rid of her FB some time ago; it was a stumbling block to her. I have tailored mine to be profitable and use it to make connections, while still checking myself. She does the same with instagram. I also don’t wholly dismiss filters brother. We have used covenant eyes for years. But I know my own heart, and I know from conversation with other brothers—it’s just a guard rail, you can get out of the car and hop over if you truly want to. Use it, sure, if it’s profitable. But the best filter is the conscience trained and sensitive to the Word of God, the bonds of love with the brethren, and a shepherd(s) who knows and loves you. That’s what the sheep need. That’s what I need. I know from my own dumb wandering.
2 Likes
I think we agree, mostly. I don’t think it’s time to retreat at all. As I said, I think we should be speaking as loudly and as publicly and as often as possible. But we simply must not be content for FB to be our only, or even our most significant, outlet.
I had a conversation today where ebooks on Amazon Kindle came up. I think using an Amazon Kindle to read books is analogous to using Facebook as a public square in at least one way: both of these insanely wealthy and powerful companies provide products that are wonderfully convenient to use, but it comes at the cost of them having the power to pull the rug out from under you at any time. In the case of Amazon, they can remove the book you purchased from your Kindle at any time, and in the case of Facebook, they can ban or shadow ban you at any time for any reason.
So go ahead and use your FB account or Amazon Kindle, but just remember to hold what you have there lightly.
4 Likes
I believe Amazon can update the book itself at any time also. That’s great if they are fixing typos or if you get a second edition of the book for free. But one needs very little imagination this week to think of some downsides.
4 Likes
This article gets at part of the problem I see:
It’s easy to say, “Just don’t waste time on Twitter or FB, and only consume healthy stuff.” But when 95% of what is out there is just plain bad for you, the average Christian is not helped but rather hurt by being on social media.
5 Likes
Sure. But it’s just as easy to retreat, is it not? Remember the previous point about the book industry. I know a pastor personally, he said to me in person with the smugness of his non-participation, “the internet is garbage and unprofitable” and the indication was that it’s not a place for Christians to engage, especially not pastors. I respect his view. But I didn’t agree with him then and I certainly don’t agree with him now.
The social media developments of the past few weeks demonstrate the contrary, namely, their great profitability, for good or ill, to reach, shape, mobilize, etc. I found this ministry through social media, and I’m very glad I did. Pastor Tim’s blog posts have rebuked my flesh more times than I can count now. The problem is not any of the various forms of media anymore than the tree of knowledge itself was bad in the garden. They’re not moral agents. Man is. Pagans are just better at dominion, generally, than Christians (Luke 16:8). Sheep are weak and thus, on that point, I can sympathize with you that many are not helped but often hurt.
Also, I’m offended. I like Taco Bell.
@ldweeks agreed on both points about FB and Kindle. I try to buy physical as much as I can.
2 Likes
Reading that article makes me want to sign up for a subscription to my local newspaper.
I know this will come across as very ironic or funny because it is, but the things I have read and heard from conservative or right wing media sources since the election have been very eye opening for me. Eye opening in that it was clear to me, with what little political science know how I have, that Biden was going to be our next president on the morning of November 4. The trendlines were clear. But rather than deal with the obvious facts, right wing media chose to indulge conspiratorial fantasies instead, much like the left did after 2016. It’s gotten to the point where I just can’t even listen or read certain sources now. I can’t stand it.
The deeper you dive into the state and county level results, the more you see the same patterns in state after state which confirms what exit polls also showed: that President Trump increased his share of the vote with ethnic minorities, in particular Hispanics in Florida and Texas, while losing ground with educated whites and with white men all over the country. That’s counterintuitive of course, but the important thing is there is no way that result could have been planned. Nobody conspired to steal the election. The election was just strange. I believe the only county in Pennsylvania where Trump’s margin improved was in Philadelphia. Philadelphia.
Christian faith is not bound up in how you see election results, so I’ve not said much on the subject, seeing how passionate people have been about alleged fraud. But now that the capitol was invaded and people are dead, it can’t be said that this kind of disinformation is harmless. It was no less harmless when leftists spread conspiracy theories about Bush and 9/11, or about cops out to hunt black men.
After taking a trip on the Trump train, I’m now off it. I’m beginning to come back around to the same sort of very qualified and skeptical trust I had in the news media back when Obama was president.
Back to the subject of the thread: the threat of misinformation is real, and the tech giants are doing what they are doing now for particular reasons, probably mostly out of fear of regulation. Personally, I think the best answer to bad speech is more speech. I find the actions of Twitter and Facebook troubling, but I also understand the context for why they are doing what they’re doing. It’s motivated partially by animus toward people like us and also just because everyone is spooked by what happened on Jan. 6. The left is not going to let this crisis go to waste, but as we get further away from the capitol event and people calm down a little, I wonder if the purges won’t let up a bit? Could this just be a temporary round of overreaction?
4 Likes
I think it would be helpful to have a set of criteria to use to determine if someone is called to social media ministry. I’ve had it in mind because I’m trying to provide unsought counsel to a church member who seems about out of her mind with anxiety, much of it driven by her time on social media getting “educated” and “educating” others as to what’s going on in our country.
My best thoughts so far: 1) If you cannot handle being on social media without the anxiety going through the roof, you’re not called to it. 1 Peter 3:14-15 tells us to make our defense of Christ as Lord without being afraid or troubled. 2) You must be able to discern what’s important and what isn’t, and avoid the foolish controversies (2 Tim 2:23). 3) You must be able to maintain a kind, gracious, and patient demeanor towards those who contradict. (2 Tim 2:24-25).
I’m stuck at the beginning though, in trying to prove that not everyone is called to social media ministry. Maybe it’s a faulty assumption of mine but I doubt it. The stated argument against is that we are called to be salt and light where people are, and they are on social media. Many people are in China too, but we’re not all called to go there. The unstated argument is that if we’re not all on there winning the arguments now then we’ll be in the gulag next year. That way of thinking seems faithless, as if God is not present and it’s up to us to organize salvation.
5 Likes
I do think there are some people who shouldn’t be on social media. Not sure that goes to the level of requiring a “calling”, but I grant there is a line to draw somewhere.
I know one husband who took his wife’s phone away from her because of her anxiety. She thanked him later.
On the other hand, we are entering a period of information warfare, and some clever defenses are warranted. It’s clear that the election was probably our first truly post-modern election with both sides spinning different narratives, trying to bring their own truth into existence.
This makes more sense of the calls to censorship right now. It’s a form of disarmament.
Every single physical event is now won or lost online, despite the actual truth of the matter. If someone visits your church service and spins up a narrative of what happened, that narrative is what will be used to determine how people react. Not the actual truth of the matter.
It’s happening now with the Capitol Hill incident, with one side essentially wishing into existence a new mythology that will be used to justify whatever.
So I don’t think retreat is an option. We have to stay connected somehow if only to play defense. This type of warfare is already asymmetrical. It’s not ground we should give up without some kind of fight. At least, not without clear steps for a good counter-attack.
5 Likes
Calibre, with the unlock tools. Just in case.
2 Likes
By the way, here’s a good overview of the DNS problem. Warning: language. Ole Michaelis - DOH! Wait, what? DNS over https? | JSUnconf 2019 - YouTube
Brave also has a vpn solution Brave Firewall + VPN | Brave Browser
I’ve found their browser useful.
I’d need to look for a DNS provider who erases or doesn’t store request logs. Seems impossible. Maybe someday someone will enable DNS over TOR.
1 Like
In 1998, Neil Postman wrote that “there is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice” and that “the computer, perhaps, will degrade community life”. Nothing about social media is more obvious today than that it’s a Faustian bargain. We get convenient communication channels at the cost of privacy, security, and sometimes sanity. Personally, the greatest losses have been the opportunity cost of wasted time and inability to sustain attention at the rate I would likely achieve if I weren’t so easily distracted by the Internet. I’ve been off social media for a long time but never completely off. I’m considering the 100 percent rule: “It’s easier to hold your principles 100 percent of the time than it is to hold them 98 percent of the time.” It’s not just that I think social media is bad for Christians. It’s bad for everyone. We should turn it off and re-connect with our neighbors and fellowships. I’m skeptical of alternative social media. What’s to stop those platforms from developing the same problems as mainstream social media? Decentralized platforms might solve some of the problems, but we already have email which is fairly decentralized. As a software engineer I see the challenges of filtering accurately and completely as insurmountable. It’s an arms race. Instead of wasting resources trying to avoid the pitfalls of the Internet, we could enjoy the treasure trove of non-Internet resources that are less fraught with peril. Books and DVDs are free to borrow from local libraries. It’s not a retreat as much as a redirection of limited resources.