Please Don't Self-Destruct
I recently stumbled upon a Facebook page based out of Whitehorse (of all places) that was compiling health research. Specifically, research on Long Covid, the effects of multiple Covid infections, avian flu, and related topics. They were both health advocates and fact checkers. I’m not talking about RK-style do-it-yourself quack research. This was the latest data from reputable scientific sources. Few of us have the time to assemble all of that in one place. I don’t visit many pages regularly, but I found myself actively seeking out their information. It was a virtual gold mine.
And then suddenly it was gone. Gone! No trace.
That was odd, so I kept an eye out for some reappearance. It didn’t happen, but eventually I found a post by a friend of theirs saying, “The page has been deleted by Facebook and the owners locked out of it and all their other Meta apps.”
I then tracked down the owners, who are now on Bluesky. They lost five years of compiled research, which they didn’t seen a reason to back up elsewhere. (Note to self: lesson learned.)
Of course, it’s hard to prove why a page was taken down. In this case, we do know the owners were critical of the Canadian and US governments’ health policies. Correlation is not causation, but the page was taken down exactly when Meta announced it had stopped fact checking.
And… it never occurred to me that no more fact checking could also mean the elimination of those who fact check. The implications of that have hit me hard.
If that’s not enough, at the same time, my social media feed is full of friends and supposed allies saying “boycott Meta!” “leave Facebook!” “go dark!”
What are they thinking?
Certainly not about the health advocates who lost their ability to publish scientific facts that some consider inconvenient.
Nor are they thinking of a reality in which an Indie author can no longer promote or sell their book. Or an artist longer has an audience to view their work. Or an organizer is severed from their community. Or a wildfire survivor can’t find support. And no, that isn’t the time to burden them with creating a new community on a different platform.
If the powers that be want to repress you, please don’t do their job for them by just lying down and rolling over.
If they don’t want you to express yourself, don’t put tape over your own mouth.
If they want to stop you from organizing, don’t beat them to it by disorganizing yourself.
Really, before you self-destruct or encourage others to do so, ask yourself: Which side am I on?
I wrote this on FB on 12 January:
A note about Facebook
There has been a lot of talk on social media regarding social media recently; catalyzed by SZuckerberg's announcement to the world of what 99% of it already knew: that he doesn't so much as know what an ethical principle is (let alone have one in his body). The only surprise in this is that he finally feels comfortable with the disclosure; apparently feeling that the man whose good graces he hopes to gain by his groveling will protect him along with adding to his modest (compared to the real god Musk) fortune.
The feeling of many is that we should no longer use any of Meta's platforms because of this. I understand the sentiment. I don't agree with it.
Using the platform no more identifies me with its content than living in the U.S. identifies me with its imperialist wars, which I've supported with my taxes because I could not live here otherwise. To be sure, I could have emigrated in the midst of the Vietnam War in order to say: I didn't support that.
Would it have changed the outcome one tiny whit? No. Would I have been less effective as a part (albeit tiny) of the slow but steady movement of the voting public away from supporting the war? Yes. So what would have been the net gain?
Decidedly negative.
Any decisions on economic boycotts should be made with a view to their effects. I'm typing this on an Apple computer. Apple is donating one million dollars to Trump's inauguration festivities. I could have decided, on hearing that, to throw it in the trash.
And get what to replace it? My noble act would have done nothing to Apple's bottom line, and the replacement would have had no greater moral value. Yes, FB gets a nanocent or two from the mere existence of my account, but there are literally thousands of other ways that I support, in the same way, activities which are directed against what I stand for. It can't be helped in our society.
My use of FB has mainly been for personal exchanges (the cyber-gossip function that I originally thought would be its only one) and for promoting my book. I've made little use of it for political or other polemical purposes (apart from one private group), and will use it that way even less in the future. Those posts simply don't matter; their effective chemical potential is in the noise. And to sacrifice the value of those relationships, and the sales (however modest) of a valuable book, for effectively no return is not rational.
Quite a few years ago, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg was asked by a junior colleague if it would be a good idea for him to make a possibly major sacrifice to join in the effort that the colonel was leading. Stauffenberg said, in essence: don't waste your life on a sacrifice unless you think you have a meaningful chance to succeed; save it for when you do.
Now I don't mean to imply that Zuck is as worthy of opposition and vanquishing as von Stauffenberg's opponent was, but the analogy is close enough to be useful. I'll continue to use my voice, however soft it too often is, to oppose the hate that he offers to afford us in pursuit of his own enrichment, and I'll use any channels (which I consider essentially weapons) available. Most of that effort will be on other platforms (please follow me on Substack!), but if and when FB can be useful, I'll use it.
Live long and prosper. And may the Force be with you.
This was as scary as it was inspiring. I will not roll over and play dead. But yikes!