Nov 2, 2022·edited Nov 2, 2022Liked by Samuel D. James
"Christians who think that faithfulness in their generation means a heavy presence on any new digital medium need to step back and consider whether the comings and goings of billionaires are having an outsized effect on their public witness."
I love that you share this, but also... I feel like this directly applies to some of the "biggest" names in Christianity today as well. I often wonder if we don't see substantial pushback against social media/digital media from Christian thinkers, writers, etc. because, deep down, they know their platform would be greatly diminished without it. It's rare to find anyone with the ability to "influence" that hasn't built their house, so to speak, on Twitter or Facebook's hallowed grounds.
For the record, this isn't me trying to be uncharitable. I legitimately am pained at how devoted we are to these websites. I truly believe so many of us would be better off without any of them in our lives.
At the end of the essay, you wrote: " . . . I would urge all of us to consider the possibility that Christian truth does not 'fit' on these digital platforms. Teaching people what to think while allowing the algorithm to teach them how to think doesn’t work."
I wish you would unpack this idea a bit further, perhaps in another essay.
My experience with internet forums and similar internet-mediated discussion venues goes way back into the late Eighties (yes, I'm that old). On the other hand, I've avoided Twitter entirely, and my Facebook experiences are simply the same (substantive discussions with others who differ from me). I'm guessing these experiences are "exempt" from your doubts. But, maybe not.
I don't think I agree with #5. I think it is very different to deny people the right to personal attacks and promotion of illegality or pathological behavior, and denying people to voice opinions that are against the grain or mainstream.
For example, people questioning the government and Big Pharma's claim that a very lightly tested medical intervention is "safe and effective" is not uncivil and is being backed by more and more evidence, yet it has caused incredible numbers to be banned from Twitter and other places. On the other hand, posting the address of a public figure in order to invite harm upon them hardly seems to deserve protection under the first amendment (which Twitter has granted it in specific cases).
Thought provoking for sure. Just not sure I “buy” into your basis....that the internet has a shelf life (in spite of the very talented Sam Kriss’ POV).
"Christians who think that faithfulness in their generation means a heavy presence on any new digital medium need to step back and consider whether the comings and goings of billionaires are having an outsized effect on their public witness."
I love that you share this, but also... I feel like this directly applies to some of the "biggest" names in Christianity today as well. I often wonder if we don't see substantial pushback against social media/digital media from Christian thinkers, writers, etc. because, deep down, they know their platform would be greatly diminished without it. It's rare to find anyone with the ability to "influence" that hasn't built their house, so to speak, on Twitter or Facebook's hallowed grounds.
For the record, this isn't me trying to be uncharitable. I legitimately am pained at how devoted we are to these websites. I truly believe so many of us would be better off without any of them in our lives.
For what it's worth, I think you're spot on!
I hope you're right about #6.
At the end of the essay, you wrote: " . . . I would urge all of us to consider the possibility that Christian truth does not 'fit' on these digital platforms. Teaching people what to think while allowing the algorithm to teach them how to think doesn’t work."
I wish you would unpack this idea a bit further, perhaps in another essay.
My experience with internet forums and similar internet-mediated discussion venues goes way back into the late Eighties (yes, I'm that old). On the other hand, I've avoided Twitter entirely, and my Facebook experiences are simply the same (substantive discussions with others who differ from me). I'm guessing these experiences are "exempt" from your doubts. But, maybe not.
I don't think I agree with #5. I think it is very different to deny people the right to personal attacks and promotion of illegality or pathological behavior, and denying people to voice opinions that are against the grain or mainstream.
For example, people questioning the government and Big Pharma's claim that a very lightly tested medical intervention is "safe and effective" is not uncivil and is being backed by more and more evidence, yet it has caused incredible numbers to be banned from Twitter and other places. On the other hand, posting the address of a public figure in order to invite harm upon them hardly seems to deserve protection under the first amendment (which Twitter has granted it in specific cases).
Thought provoking for sure. Just not sure I “buy” into your basis....that the internet has a shelf life (in spite of the very talented Sam Kriss’ POV).
AMEN! I have thankfully never succumbed to Twitter and now never will.