Promoting free will on social media

The irony of “free will” is that it wants to assert itself and then dominate. That’s probably the main reason why the biggest social media tool, Facebook, has caused constant doubts. On the one hand, Facebook “liberates” and “empowers” its users. But on the other hand, Facebook has attracted manipulators, propagandists and lobbyists. Some call Facebook a social lab where feelings are made to become contagious and ideals imprinted through shortcuts.
The pros of social media include mindfulness and open-mindedness. When friends are feeling “sad” about something, a happy “you” will learn that suffering or misery is all too common and life is simply fragile. It opens your eyes and helps promote compassion and sympathy.
The cons include undue anger or misdirection or even sheer manipulation. This is something that the conventional media or day-to-day living can subject you to, but social media’s effects can be faster and more widespread. When friends dislike something or feel something, it can be effectively infectious.
How can we exercise free will without defeating its original purpose? Maybe the concept of “like” should be rethought, to start with. “Like” is a form of peer pressure but that may be the least of our concerns. “Like” is a polite greeting or social media etiquette, but it may also rush you into accepting what the original poster wants to convey, rightly or wrongly. If you “like” some post, the ability to dispute it may decrease, subtly or significantly.
Surveys have proved that people can feel positive or negative depending on their Facebook environments. But negatives naturally spread faster and more easily. A friend winning a big lottery prize may draw a cascade of “congratulations”, but the Facebook effect of a friend who feels hard done by in a traffic case can linger longer. It doesn’t matter if he or she is in the wrong or not. Once it’s on Facebook, the circle of friends can be made to hate the traffic police in general.
“Free will” needs time to develop or it will become too fast to live. People must not be confused between the ability to “react” and the ability to “react constantly”. The former allows reasons to sink in, while the latter is simply risky. If one condemns what happens in a shared video, it will be hard to make a U-turn. More likely, one will be tempted to justify a condemnation that can be wrong. A rush to judgement, common on Facebook, can lead to a badly twisted standpoint.
Led by Facebook, social media has portrayed itself as a flag-bearer of free will. It probably was the same when democracy was first experimented with, before big corporations, political parties and giant institutions came to control much of the game. Social media users, however, have various advantages, and trying to control them may require something special.
That doesn’t mean the malicious forces won’t try. Free will has a strange habit of imposing itself, and this can play into the hands of free will’s opposites, whatever it is or whoever they are. What social media is offering is a precious space where basically anyone can express his or her thoughts. That precious space can only be protected by users’ own ethical codes. It is not easy, as the line between freedom of expression and domination of opinions can become very thin.
Social media users will have to keep in mind the most important thing. Free will, they must remember, doesn’t edge out opposite opinions and it doesn’t force agreement. Understanding this delicate essence of social media can create constructive dialogues. The alternative is a door wide open for those who want to turn this precious space into something else.