Anti-social media is stoking fires of Brexit debate
Amid all the uncertainties brought about by the current Brexit chaos, of one thing I am fairly certain: had the EU referendum taken place two decades earlier than 2016 and the result had been similar – ie a fairly narrow majority for leaving the institution – the country would not be divided in the way it is today.
Largely to blame is the worldwide web. By 1996 the internet had gained a foothold in society but social media was still in its infancy and only a few boffins dreamed of a thing called a “smartphone”, a device which would enable people to instantly interact at any time of the day or night or from any part of the civilised world – whether sitting at home, travelling by bus or train, or sunbathing on a Spanish beach.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
that, of course, just so long as interaction is confined to a good-natured spat between family, friends and acquaintances. The reality, however, is that debates between people of opposing views on sites such as Facebook and Twitter have become increasingly bad-tempered and, indeed, offensive. Two decades ago it would have seemed incredible that complete strangers living hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles apart could indulge in a “live” argument in which the two parties become increasingly angry with one another, even going to the extent of trading the “F-word” when things become especially heated.
I have no doubt that, without the internet, parliament – indeed the two main parliamentary parties – would be as angry and divided as today over what to do about Brexit. However, the internet has enabled this division to spread across the country and the facility to make instant comments without taking time to draw breath and think before texting or typing has undoubtedly fuelled the flames.
However, this is not confined to Brexit but applies to almost every political, social or economic issue of the day, and that includes sport, especially football (think of the all-out cyber-war that breaks out after every Old Firm game). The behaviour about which I complain does, on occasion, infect the comments section below the electronic version of this article on The Scotsman website. Some posts are supportive – for which I am grateful – while others make constructive criticism of my opinions, something with which I do not have a problem because it is always good to get the other person’s point of view if put in a civilised manner. Unfortunately some comments are simply unfair and, occasionally, border on being offensive. This, in particular, applies to those who seem to be hiding a somewhat extreme political agenda. I suspect their problem is not just with privately-rented housing but with private housing per se and that if they ever achieved their goal of nationalising or municipalising the rented sector they would then turn their attention to owner-occupation, in the belief that society’s residential needs are best-served by an all-knowing State.
As regards those websites in which consumers can comment on a particular product or service, we property agents are in the thick of it. I am proud of the fact that posts about my own company are generally positive and on the few occasions when we do get things wrong, if necessary I will personally intervene to try and put things right. My view is that one should endeavour to look at any disagreement from the other party’s point of view because that is key to a resolution, assuming this is what that party also wants. If more people took a similar attitude on social media then debate would be a lot more civilised – and a lot more constructive.
My hope is that the “no prisoners” attitude which currently characterises the world of social media will turn out to be a temporary phenomenon and that people will eventually see the pointlessness – and wrong-headedness – of such indulgence. But the genie is out of the bottle and it will take time and effort to push it back in.
● David Alexander is MD of DJ Alexander
Debates on sites such as Facebook have become increasingly
offensive