0
0
This morning as I attempted to inform myself about some of the crazy things that are happening in the world, I came across a report that caught my attention, of interest not only for the issue in particular, but also for the broader principle to which it’s related.
Apparently Starbucks and other large corporate entities are threatening to pull their advertising from Facebook unless Mark Zuckerberg requires the company to remove content that is clearly inaccurate and/or racist and/or repugnant and/or promoting of violence.
My first thought was, “Bravo. If Facebook won’t clean up its act on its own, then for once let’s hand it to corporate America for stepping up to the plate and using its influence to combat extremism and racism.” Oh, but then I asked myself, who’s going to decide, who’s going to draw the line, and where will the line be drawn—for this issue and for others in the future.
****
So let’s take a step back. I’m the sort of person who has always tried to see both sides of an issue. Rather than seeing the world in terms of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, my world is colored by every shade of gray imaginable. On the one hand… but on the other…
I’ve always thought that life would be so much simpler if I could become a zealot, espouse a cause with unwavering fervor, and not worry for a moment about the rightfulness of my beliefs. Not surprisingly, I see both the pro’s and con’s of this sort of thinking.
Social scientists tell us that there’s an inverse relationship between extremity of opinion and intensity of opinion. To consider the possibility of being a “passionate moderate” is pretty much oxymoronic. At worst we are wishy-washy, at best we are people who think of issues in complex ways, ideally not getting caught up in inaction as a result of being pulled in both directions simultaneously.
****
So, back to Facebook and Starbucks. I want nasty, vile content to be withdrawn. I want calls for white supremacy and all content that incites violent action censored and deleted.
Oh, did I sat “censored.” No, I couldn’t have. That’s a dirty word. We don’t censor; we don’t restrict the right of people to say what’s on their mind. We stand firmly behind the First Amendment, and recognize that people must be free to state what’s on their mind—no matter how abhorrent. Right???
How do I not stand with Starbucks and say that those who control the social media must act proactively, responsibly, and assertively to assure that those who peddle hate do not have an open platform to further their causes. Then again, although I haven’t checked with the ACLU recently, how do I not stand with them and worry about restricting the rights of those I don’t like or agree with to express themselves.
I seek the happy medium. I seek a compromise position that makes sense. I so wish it could be one way or the other? I see flashes of black, followed by brilliant, gleaming flares of white.
But then, for better or for worse, and inevitably, it all turns a murky, murky gray. Not quite here, but not quite there…
