Are We Amusing Ourselves To Death?

Dear " Name"

thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I still think that Neil Postman's concerns about television trivializing discourse can be readily applied to Facebook,Twitter etc.
Postman bemoaned the influence of television.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy”

You make an interesting point about how we should define "friends".A pastor who refers to the congregation as friends ,is misusing the term. Anonymous people in a crowd are not his friends. I think friendship is more than cyberspace connectivity. It involves journeying together. I would suggest that Facebook creates connection but falls short of community.

cheers

Bill

Is Facebook calling participants friends all that different from a Pastor referring to his congregation as friends? In my opinion, no. Or think of Shakespeare's speech that starts with “Friends, Romans, countrymen...” We regard that as a great literature, and it's the same loose usage. It's certainly worth thinking about, but let's not go too far with our criticism of the terminology. Unfriending on Facebook carries about the same level of angst as avoiding yet another conversation with a socially-awkward neighbour.

Social media is most definitely not lazy or commitment-free. Where else would we see an investment of 30+ hours a week, and question the depth of a participant's commitment? There is a common understanding that if everyone isn't committed, then universality collapses, and usefulness along with it. The pressure is fascinating: it's creating a brand-new mainstream. TV used to provide our cultural connection points, now social media do. That scales: it's true culturally, subculturally or even microcosmically. The assumption is clear: if you care, you're there.

Also, this discussion seemed to assume that the social media phenomenon is going to remain at the text level indefinitely. But it won't. There are several technological advances happening concurrently: bandwidth, speed, portability and reduced cost. The experience is going to become richer, resolution is going to increase and the restrictions are coming down. The always-on facet is going to be with us at all times. Teenagers already share life with each other via their smartphones – this is a major reason they have become so ubiquitous. (The Gen-X and older crowd tend to frame this as distancing, but investigation shows that the opposite is true.) This redefines (continually) the kind of real life that involves sharing experiences.

We have to look into the future, perceive the needs that these phenomena will create and imagine ways to lovingly intervene. And we also need to embrace the tools for the cause of Christ. It's a both-and.