Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2018-01-04, Page 5Other Views Think before you post online Jf you're making New Year's resolutions and you're a user of social media, I hope you'll resolve to use these powerful media responsibly in the coming year. Social media can become dangerous when people use it to spout off without first thinking things through or finding out the facts. A good example happened back before Christmas when some people attacked North Huron's firefighters for being greedy because they went on strike. The strike had nothing to do with firefighters' pay at all but was about a breakdown in communications, but thoughtless posts spread untrue opinions. Small towns have often been knocked as places where gossip can spread quickly, but with the internet, the world is a village. If we gossip across the back fence, over a table at a coffee shop or around the water cooler at work, any information exchanged and opinions expressed have a limited range. Thoughtless or incorrect things we say can only spread so far before they die out. Unfortunately, people tend to treat social media the same way they do a conversation among friends. It's not. Social media is actually more like a radio station or a newspaper. It has the ability to spread misinformation far and wide. To make a very local comparison, it's as if you took something you heard from a neighbour and shouted it in a crowded town square. If you demeaned someone in that town square, you'd better be prepared to prove what you said was true because the victim can sue you for slander. So far, in the wild west world of the internet, the same rules don't apply. Until recently I sat on the board of directors of a sort of co-operative insurance company Keith Roulston From the cluttered desk that provides libel insurance for Canada's community newspapers. Every year we'd have to pay for lawyers to defend publishers and the staff of a handful of newspapers that had slipped up and printed something that someone felt had libeled them. Often it was just someone who was angry about some story they didn't like and they had no legal case, but the odd time, we'd have to pay out substantial damages. Our jobs as directors became more complicated as we tried to move with the times and insure newspapers for what they posted on their websites or publishers who only distribute their news online. Our greatest fear was those publications that allowed readers to post responses online. Often these are full of rage and untruth, the kind of thing that would be edited if it arrived in a letter to the editor, but was unmediated on the internet. The bewildering thing for us was that rules of libel and slander that apply to newspapers and radio and television stations so far haven't applied to the internet — except to websites that could be identified as part of a newspaper or traditional news provider. A newspaper might get sued for the same comment on its website that went unchallenged on Twitter, Facebook or someone's personal blog. Society has, to this point, bought into the argument of companies like Facebook and Google that they aren't publishers, in the way THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2018. PAGE 5. newspapers are, but simply conduits allowing individuals and companies to send their own messages to other individuals. It's been highly profitable. Facebook has no cost of creating content, as do television stations or newspapers, yet they collect nearly $1 billion a week selling advertising — and they argue they have no responsibility for anything they help to spread. A recent newspaper article, noting that Facebook is now 13 years old, compared the company to a teenager who likes having the freedom of growing up but doesn't want to have to accept the responsibility that comes with it. But the days of freedom from responsibility may be ending for social media companies. The manipulation of American voters in the 2016 elections by Russian agents spreading fake news and ads through social media caused U.S. Senators to call top officials of Facebook, Twitter and Google before a special hearing last fall. Lawmakers want to force these, and similar social media companies, to take more responsibility for what they transmit. Sooner or later the courts, too, must start acting to protect individuals from libel and slander on the internet, just as they have for a century in traditional media. Meanwhile, we're living in the same sort of circumstances Americans have with guns, where the gun lobby argues "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It's left to us to be individually responsible. Social media can be a power for good, spreading inspiring stories or seeking help for people who need it. Unfortunately, it also has the power to do great harm, spreading hateful or untrue opinions. You have the responsibility to use it only for good. Think before you rush to post something on the internet. Me and my pack -rat tendencies Every year at Christmas I'm faced with a dilemma: I've simply got too much stuff for the space I have. Aside from being the definition of a First world problem, that reality is more a product of my own hang-ups regarding material goods than it is anything to do with the number of Christmas presents I receive. I've come to realize that I value things differently than other people and it results in me holding on to things instead of having a nice, clean, spartan living space. Gifts, to me, have a value attached to them that goes beyond their utility. Whether it's a pair of headphones, pajama pants, a video game or even a pen or pencil, I look at them and don't see what they are, I see the feeling behind them and, for someone as sentimental as me, that can be a problem. It results in me forming these emotional attachments that defy logic to completely inanimate objects which makes it more difficult to get rid of things that I've outgrown. It's something I try not to do anymore and, like they say, realizing you have a problem is the first step towards overcoming it, right? I don't want to completely separate a gift from the person who gave it and the emotions behind it, but I do need to start realizing that those ratty old pyjama bottoms with multiple holes in them that I've held on to for years should probably be turned into paint rags. However, while I do think I need to be a little less sentimental, on the whole, the world needs to become a little more sentimental. Over the past five days (due to New Year's Day falling on a Monday, this column is being penned on Dec. 29), my Facebook feed has been absolutely littered with people trying to turn Christmas gifts into a bit of quick cash. Whether it's a FitBit (someone got the wrong model), something someone didn't want or even the wrong brand of headphones, Denny Scott Denny's Den there are people out there selling things "RNIB" (Brand New In Box) because someone didn't want what they received. I'm not going to lie: I've received gifts that I had no interest whatsoever in owning. I won't go into detail on that, but, like everyone else, I've received things I didn't want and for which I had no use. My parents taught me, however, that you smile, say thank you and try to find some way to make use of the heart -in -the -right -place effort someone made for you. It's a bit disheartening to see so many people turn to social media to try and sell gifts that were received less than a week ago. I'm not suggesting that people should adopt the problem I have and start squirreling away these items with no use because they were gifts. I am, however, saying that people should treat them with a little more respect. The first part of that respect is to be honest with the person who gave you the gift, it may result in a newfound appreciation for it. I'm not saying walk up to them and say, "This sucks, why did you get it for me?" but, ask a question or two about the gift. Who knows, you might find out that the gift has some special, unknown connection to you that you didn't see before. Take, for example, a book that I was once given for Christmas by a relative. The book seemed to come completely out of left field. That is, I didn't see why or how anyone would think of me when they considered it. After a few quick inquiries ("Tell me about this author," "Have you read this?", "What made you think of me?" etc.) I discovered that the author of the book had started out at a community newspaper and that many of the stories later in the book were related to that. It didn't take me long to figure out why the person had thought it would be a good gift and, sure enough, when I did find the time to crack it open and read through, I found myself connecting to the author and being thankful for the chance to read it. If, however, you can't bring yourself to be brave enough to ask those kinds of innocent questions (shame on you for not making the effort) then at least wait a little while before you start trying to hawk those heartfelt gifts. Give it a month or two before you start trying to turn a buck on gifts that someone thought you may like or have a use for. Also, maybe don't use Facebook or other social media sites to try and sell them (after all, do you really want people to hear that, instead of enjoying their gifts you tried to make a quick buck? Trust me, it will get back to them.) Another good rule of thumb — don't regift something that you didn't want in the first place. If we're talking about some kind of un - returnable item that didn't fit you but might fit a friend, then you can take a chance (though, like I said above, whoever gave you that gift will find out; it's karma). However, if you didn't want something, the worst thing you can do is pass it on like a bad penny. Not only are you doing a disservice to the person who gave you the gift, but to the person you passed it to as well. And lastly, remember, the best part of giving a gift is a reaction, so always smile and say thank you whether you see the use of a gift immediately or not. It can mean the world. Shawn Loughlin Shawn's Sense How went the war? So, how did the war go over the holidays? Which war? Well, the war of Christmas of course. We've all heard about it. You know, political -correctness run amuck, liberal - minded people popping up out of shrubbery and snowbanks to scold you if you utter those two magic words: Merry Christmas. Well, if you wished someone a Merry Christmas and you weren't immediately apprehended and/or put in that non -police - issued (but actually police -issued — wink, wink) choke hold, then you, my friend, have won the war. How does it feel? Perhaps we can thank the almighty U.S. President Donald Trump for the big win (God knows he's likely already taken credit for it). In a Tweet (his preferred vehicle for bloviation), Trump said he had been waiting all year to wish Americans a "MERRY CHRISTMAS". God knows no one could do it under previous President Barack Obama (who many believe to be an American -hating Muslim). You all know what I'm talking about. It began cropping up a few years ago. Businesses and political agencies began saying things like "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" in order to include those who celebrate Hanukkah, Kwanza or Ramadan. However, like so many things that start out with the best intentions, the old guard has taken this shift as an attack on old traditions. When the term "Happy Holidays" started making an appearance, some felt their God- given right to wish another human being a Merry Christmas had been stripped away. This followed, in their minds, the loss of the ability to joke, smoke indoors, drink and drive (without a seatbelt) and have sex without a condom. Ah, the good old days. It is this exact sentiment, but without the Christmas tree, that is at the heart of the alt - right movement that helped earn Fox News an audience and Trump the presidency. North American legacy families, the vast majority of them white, feel their country is no longer theirs. Visible minorities are taking their jobs, their seats on buses and maybe even dating their daughters and they feel as though order needs to be restored. That's why you've seen men march with tiki torches in Charlottesville, North Carolina chanting things like "One people, one nation, end immigration" and "Blood and soil", a big rallying cry in Nazi Germany. They feel like their world is being turned upside down, simply because people who don't look like they do are being given opportunities as well. So, back to Christmas (or the holidays — I can't remember which side I'm on). There has been this war on Christmas happening in the minds of some that suggests the holiday — and, indeed, the greeting — have officially died. I say in the minds of some, because if anyone has ever actually wished someone a Merry Christmas and been reprimanded for it, I'd love to hear it. These stories don't really seem to exist outside of extreme examples. No doubt if you actually wished a Merry Christmas to someone who doesn't celebrate Christmas, they would either quietly accept your greeting (you aren't, after all, being rude by saying such a thing — your heart is in the right place) or politely mention that they don't celebrate Christmas. If anyone has ever been punched in the face for wishing someone a Merry Christmas, please let me know and I'll retract this column. The inclusion of others doesn't have to come at the expense of your exclusion. There is no war on Christmas, folks.