Facebook superposters and the loss of our own narrative

August 26, 2018

In the NYTimes, a fas­ci­nat­ing piece on fil­ter bub­bles and the abil­i­ty of Face­book “super­posters” to dom­i­nate feeds, dis­tort real­i­ty, and pro­mote para­noia and violence.

Super­posters tend to be “more opin­ion­at­ed, more extreme, more engaged, more every­thing,” said Andrew Guess, a Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty social sci­en­tist. When more casu­al users open Face­book, often what they see is a world shaped by super­posters like Mr. Wasser­man. Their exag­ger­at­ed world­views play well on the algo­rithm, allow­ing them to col­lec­tive­ly — and often unknow­ing­ly — dom­i­nate news­feeds. “That’s some­thing spe­cial about Face­book,” Dr. Paluck said. “If you end up get­ting a lot of time on the feed, you are influ­en­tial. It’s a dif­fer­ence with real life.”

A great many general-interest Face­book groups that I see are dom­i­nat­ed by troll­ish peo­ple whose vis­i­bil­i­ty relies on how provoca­tive they can get with­out being banned. This is true in many Quaker-focused groups. Face­book pri­or­i­tizes engage­ment and noth­ing seems to get our fin­gers mad­ly tap­ping more than provo­ca­tion by some­one half-informed.

For­mal mem­ber­ship in a Quak­er meet­ing is a con­sid­ered process; for many Quak­er groups, pub­lic min­istry is also a delib­er­at­ed process, with clear­ness com­mit­tees, anchor com­mit­tees, etc. On Face­book, mem­ber­ship con­sists of click­ing a like but­ton; pub­lic min­istry, aka vis­i­bil­i­ty, is a mat­ter of hav­ing a lot of time to post com­ments. Pub­lic groups with min­i­mal mod­er­a­tion which run on Face­book’s engagement-inducing algo­rithms are the pub­lic face of Friends these days, far more vis­i­ble than any pub­li­ca­tion or rec­og­nized Quak­er body’s Face­book pres­ence. I writ­ten before of my long-term wor­ry that with the rise of social media gate­keep­ing sites, we’re not the ones writ­ing our sto­ry anymore.

I don’t have any answers. But the NYTimes piece helped give me some use­ful ways of think­ing about these phenomena.

Generational strategies for Quaker outreach

August 5, 2018

From Emi­ly Provance:

An under-45 com­mu­ni­ca­tions strat­e­gy, in con­trast, would most­ly involve social media (Face­book, Insta­gram, Twit­ter, pos­si­bly Tum­blr or Pin­ter­est). Arti­cles would be short and would con­tain most­ly con­tent direct­ly rel­e­vant to the read­er — or, if the con­tent were not direct­ly rel­e­vant, it would be single-story nar­ra­tives with an empha­sis on per­son­al impact. Announce­ments would come out through mes­sen­ger apps or text mes­sages, with a strong ele­ment of user con­trol about which announce­ments to receive and which not. Pho­tos and videos would be used frequently.

I’m always a bit wary of gen­er­a­tional deter­min­ism. I think gen­er­a­tional ideas are more like under­ly­ing trends that get more or less trac­tion over time. And Quak­er dig­i­tal out­reach in par­tic­u­lar has been a thing for a quar­ter cen­tu­ry now. But the under­ly­ing mes­sage — that some peo­ple need to be reached dig­i­tal­ly while oth­ers are still best served by print — is a sound one and I’m glad Emi­ly’s bring­ing it up.

But it’s still kind of sad that we still need to make this kind of argu­ment. I remem­ber hav­ing these dis­cus­sions around an FGC out­reach com­mit­tee table fif­teen years ago: sure­ly we’re all on board about the need for dig­i­tal out­reach in 2018?

The 45-Yard Line

Letting your life speak in digital spaces

May 8, 2018

Kath­leen Wooten has some tips on min­is­ter­ing in social spaces with­out “los­ing your san­i­ty”):

Devel­op per­son­al rules: These are spe­cif­ic to you. A few of mine…. Nev­er respond to an angry mes­sage from my phone. Always open a com­put­er, sit down inten­tion­al­ly, and if pos­si­ble wait 24 hours. ON social media – this might be a short­er time frame, but still, not until I can sit and cen­ter and not speak out of anger.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever writ­ten down my per­son­al guide­lines. Some of these are gener­ic to being a good online cit­i­zen (don’t feed trolls, don’t punch down, don’t respond in anger, dis­en­gage when a con­ver­sa­tion is obvi­ous­ly run­ning in circles).

Oth­er guide­lines of mine arguably come from Quak­er val­ues. For exam­ple, in gen­er­al I won’t men­tion some­one else on a forum in which they don’t appear. I’m espe­cial­ly wary on pri­vate Face­book groups, as they can eas­i­ly become forum for detrac­tion and us/them peer pres­sure.  The Tract Asso­ci­a­tion pam­phlet on detrac­tion is real­ly a must-read. It’s actu­al­ly prob­a­bly some­thing worth re-reading every six months. Read­ers: what kind of prac­tices have you devel­oped to be a respon­si­ble Quak­er online?

Eternities

April 24, 2018

Sam Barnett-Cormack brings a grammarian’s eye to our use of the old Quak­er phrase, “The Things Which Are Eternal”:

To know one anoth­er in that which is eter­nal is to share our grace, our Light, our spir­i­tu­al expe­ri­ence. It goes beyond the sort of know­ing that might come from social activ­i­ties and ice­break­ers; indeed, it is of an entire­ly dif­fer­ent char­ac­ter… For it comes down to this – to know one anoth­er in that which is eter­nal is to know the Divine, and to know the Divine is to know one anoth­er in this way; they are two sides of one coin, and we can only pro­mote one by also pro­mot­ing the other.

https://​quakeropen​ings​.blogspot​.co​.uk/​2​0​1​8​/​0​4​/​w​h​a​t​-​a​r​e​-​t​h​i​n​g​s​-​w​h​i​c​h​-​a​r​e​-​e​t​e​r​n​a​l​.​h​tml

Has Christ come to teach his people himself?

April 13, 2018

Johan Mau­r­er looks at one of our most-used George Fox quotes and won­ders whether we’re using it authen­ti­cal­ly: Has Christ come to teach his peo­ple himself?

I want us to use our dear­est clich­es hon­est­ly, but if they some­times seem weak­ened by overuse, the solu­tion isn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly to dis­card them. Maybe we can redis­cov­er their provoca­tive con­tent and test whether the promise with­in is already being ful­filled or could once again be ful­filled in our time.

I appre­ci­ate that Johan also asks if we’re hoard­ing this insight and claim­ing it as par­tic­u­lar­ly Quak­er. One of my per­son­al tests for adopt­ing Quak­er pecu­liar­i­ties of prac­tice or belief is whether I could argue that they should be adopt­ed by oth­er Chris­tians (or even oth­er peo­ple of faith in gen­er­al) as uni­ver­sal prin­ci­ples. An atti­tude of plain­ness not based on social pres­sures or uni­forms is one I think would bring humil­i­ty and insight to any fol­low­er of Christ, for example.

That Christ has risen and is here and is ready to guide us direct­ly seems to be an obvi­ous truth – the heart of the res­ur­rec­tion and of Pen­te­cost and the apos­tles’ church plants. That some church­es insert peo­ple in between is a poten­tial dis­trac­tion but even they would, I hope, keep in mind that Christ is there with them in their steeple hous­es and in their lives.

The only oth­er take-away I have from this uni­ver­sal­i­ty test is that it cen­ters the Inward Christ and risen Jesus and not our human insti­tu­tions. This was the obvi­ous point in the 1650s as Quak­ers broke up reli­gious meet­ings and I think it still holds true. Our libraries and meet­ing­hous­es and mis­sion state­ments and staff flow­charts don’t mean any­thing if they get in the way of the pur­pose of our soci­ety, which is sim­ply to help one anoth­er set­tle down, rec­og­nize that Inward Christ, and learn the cor­po­rate skills dis­cern­ment so we can be Friends (of Jesus). The invi­ta­tion to knock on Jesus’s door is extend­ed to all, not just those of us call­ing our­selves Quaker.

https://​blog​.canyoube​lieve​.me/​2​0​1​8​/​0​4​/​h​a​s​-​c​h​r​i​s​t​-​c​o​m​e​-​t​o​-​t​e​a​c​h​-​h​i​s​-​p​e​o​p​l​e​.​h​tml

Quakers and Mental Health

March 29, 2018

Well this one hits home for me. The new Quak­er­S­peak talks to Ore­gon social work­er Melody George in the top­ic of Quak­ers and Men­tal Health:

I real­ly see men­tal diver­si­ty as a gift to a com­mu­ni­ty, and that the folks that I serve and that I’ve worked with are very resilient. If they tell you their sto­ries about how they’ve got­ten through their trau­mat­ic sit­u­a­tions and what’s helped them to keep going, faith is a huge part of that. And we have a lot to learn from their strength and resilience.

My fam­i­ly has had very avoid­able and out-of-nowhere con­flicts at two reli­gious spaces — one a Friends meet­ing and the oth­er a Pres­by­ter­ian church — over easy acco­mo­da­tions for my son Fran­cis. It seems like many of the dynam­ics that we’ve seen are not dis­sim­i­lar to those that keep oth­ers out of meet­ing com­mu­ni­ties. Who are we will­ing to adapt for? Is com­fort and famil­iar­i­ty our main goal?

Melody also wrote for Friends Jour­nal a few years ago, Imag­in­ing a Trauma-informed Quak­er Com­mu­ni­ty.

Decline and persistence, part two

March 2, 2018

So much to chew on in Johan Mau­r­er’s Decline and per­sis­tence, part two. Find a good chair and take the time to read.

Friends the­ol­o­gy strips away all irrel­e­vant social dis­tinc­tions, giv­ing us the poten­tial for rad­i­cal hos­pi­tal­i­ty, but that requires us to neu­tral­ize elit­ist sig­nals of all kinds with a hunger to taste heav­en’s diver­si­ty here and now. If it takes a whole new con­ver­sion to give us the nec­es­sary free­dom and emo­tion­al range in place of old class anx­i­eties, so be it.

http://​blog​.canyoube​lieve​.me/​2​0​1​8​/​0​3​/​d​e​c​l​i​n​e​-​a​n​d​-​p​e​r​s​i​s​t​e​n​c​e​-​p​a​r​t​-​t​w​o​.​h​tml

Belief (in anything) and belief (in nothing)

February 27, 2018

So Isaac Smith is back with the third install­ment of his grow­ing series, “Dif­fer­ence Between a Gath­ered Meet­ing and a Focused Meet­ing” and this time he’s ref­er­enc­ing two writ­ers on Quak­er mat­ters, Michael J. Sheer­an and yours tru­ly.

In my pre­vi­ous posts, the dis­tinc­tion between gath­ered and focused meet­ings seemed con­nect­ed to one’s reli­gious out­look, and thus relat­ed to the divide between Christ-centered and uni­ver­sal­ist Quak­ers that has bedev­iled our faith for cen­turies. But as Sheer­an and Kel­ley argue, the more fun­da­men­tal divide in the lib­er­al branch of Quak­erism is between those who seek con­tact with the divine and those who don’t.

My post is, as Smith puts it, “near­ly fif­teen years old,” which is about the length of a social gen­er­a­tion. I’m not sure if I’m in a good posi­tion to pon­tif­i­cate about what has and has­n’t changed. Much of my Quak­er work is with inter­est­ing out­liers, either one-or-one or as part of a loose tribe of Friends who pas­sion­ate­ly care about Quak­erism and are will­ing to go into the weeds to under­stand it. I have very lit­tle recent expe­ri­ence with com­mit­tees on local levels.

One use­ful con­cept that I’ve picked up in the last fif­teen years is that of “func­tion­al athe­ism.” This bypass­es a group’s self-stated under­stand­ings of faith to look at how its decision-making process actu­al­ly works. An orga­ni­za­tion that is func­tion­al­ly athe­ist might be full of very devout peo­ple who togeth­er still decide actions in a com­plete­ly sec­u­lar way. I would guess this has become even more the norm among the acronymic soup of nation­al Quak­er orga­ni­za­tions in the last fif­teen years. In that time a lot of bright ideas have come and gone which flashed briefly with the fuel of donor mon­ey but which did­n’t cre­ate a self-sustaining momen­tum to keep them going long term. Think­ing more strate­gi­cal­ly about what peo­ple are seek­ing in their spir­i­tu­al lives might have helped those cast seeds land on more fer­tile grounds.

The Dif­fer­ence Between a Gath­ered Meet­ing and a Focused Meet­ing (3)

Bonus: the 14-year-old com­ments on my piece include some gen­tle whin­ing about Friends Jour­nal between myself and a reg­u­lar read­er at the time. Now that I’m its senior edi­tor I’m sure there remains plen­ty to grum­ble about.