Immoderate Behaviour
I recently weighed in with an opinion on the question of whether comments should be moderated in a Facebook group. I thought they should. Coming to this opinion I overlooked a small discomfort I felt during my response. Over the last little while this discomfort has grown causing me to reflect further. As a result, my view has changed and I do not believe moderation of contributions to the Facebook page is the way to go.
Reflecting on my discomfort I realised that my response lacked compassion, patience and generosity — three values that I personally hold dear and that are often at the heart of this Mindfulness for Change. When I considered the issue of comment moderation through the lens of these values my opinion changed.
Compassion says to me that any input to the group should not be rejected. Compassion here means that I choose to see the person who has posted the comment, rather than the substance of the comment itself. Rather than responding, reacting really, to an inanimate non-sentient idea, by being compassionate I instead choose to see the being who has put forward this idea. By doing this I bring myself into relationship with that person rather than react rather abstractly to my perception of what they have written. Reactivity is the antithesis of compassion.
With patience I take in what they have said and sit with it. I appreciate that this is really incompatible with social media moderation and, for that matter, with social media itself. Take any issue of the day and sit with it for a while before beginning to form an opinion and you will find that by the time you might want to share your view everyone else will have moved on. I use Twitter and on Twitter if you have not taken a side within .034 of a nanosecond then one will be assigned to you. There is no chance for reflection.
This may be a culture that is facilitated through the immediacy of social media but it is not a reason to forgo patience. As users of social media we are part of social media and how we act, how we use it, then becomes part of the culture of social media. Perhaps not a noticeable or dominant part but what’s that about being the change you want to see in the world?
When I look at this issue from the value of generosity I see that I can share my time, my virtual space, my resources with you and we will both be richer because of it. I can also acknowledge your generosity in coming forward with your idea, and by doing so, coming forward with yourself as this is what we do when we put our ideas in a public forum. Rather than justifying the necessarily judgemental approach of moderating content I can instead choose to be grateful for your willingness to step forward, even if I have a radically different take on whatever you have stepped forward with. Then, in response of your generous offering I can engage my own generosity to accept whatever you have come with. Not agree, adopt or endorse. Just accept. Generosity does not sit well with moderation.
My initial response to this issue came from my genuine concern that the spreading of conspiracy theories and the like is dangerous to social and political discourse; that it undermines truth; that it can lead to the undermining of the democratic process; that it requires the effort of rebuttal and response. But aren’t these ideas just part of my own conspiracy theory? My own fear? My thought is that by not censoring opinions that I clearly consider to be false and that misrepresent the truth my well-being will somehow be threatened as there is some trend or movement afoot to harmfully spread such untruths. Explaining my concerns like this they certainly begin to sound like a conspiracy theory.
When it comes to the voices of others: of women; of Maori; of different sexual, gender and social orientations, I want to be the first to put my hand up for inclusiveness. So why would I draw the line at someone who has heartfelt concerns about 5G? Excluding a view is exclusion, even if I feel I can justify that exclusion. Like with any act of exclusion there are repercussions. If I choose to shut down what you say about Covid or 1080 why would you then come back and share your voice on other things, even if they are things I am more comfortable with? Things i might learn from and expand my awareness. Why is my comfort an arbiter of whether your voice is included or not?
When it comes to communications that might cause harm, more direct harm rather than an abstract, distant social or political harm, these are easily and rightly subject to exclusion. Voices that abuse or bully are recognisable and I have no difficulty with not allowing them, not facilitating them.
Short of that, I now see no good reason to moderate or exclude. Should you post a view that I consider a wild conspiracy theory then, in a mindful way, I should watch my response rather than act immediately (as I did and, thankfully, the moderator did not). I can watch any discomfort I feel. I can watch my concern that the presence of the post in this group will be embarrassing for me. I can observe any desire to shore up my own ego perception of myself by distancing myself from you and your view or any urge to correct, deny, belittle your view because mine is better. I can watch all these responses arise, and more, and then still choose to act, or not act, out of compassion, patience and generosity and without unnecessary exclusion. This has nothing to do with censorship or free speech, facets of a binary true / false world. This is a new paradigm where love for each other is at the core, where who we really are is more important than what we say or think. This is the change I want and I am grateful for the chance to see that.
