Social Networking Friends and Foes, Real People and Fakes

     Just yesterday, two separate times, I was logged into Facebook and was reading some posts, Two status updates stood out and reflected my own feelings about my many of my own social networking experiences. One person posted (and I'm paraphrasing): "Facebook is ridiculous. Want to know what I think? I wonder who among you are really my friends. This includes those of you whom I have met in real life. I spend so much time looking at your pages and signing a bunch of your petitions and I feel like my time is being wasted when so many of you don't take the time to look at my material. Let's face it, folks. Who among us have real friends whom we have met online? Who among us would talk to each other outside of Facebook?"
     A few hours later, I saw another post on my homepage. This person posted (and I'm paraphrasing): "Folks, can any of us really trust anyone we meet only online? Online contact does not work like real life. Online, people can too easily hide behind their computer screens and lie to you about who they are and what they do. Don't trust people even when they present themselves as having missing loved ones; they are not saints and cannot be really trusted. Don't trust people even when they are advocates for children; they are not saints and cannot really be trusted. It doesn't matter what people pose as or say about themselves. You cannot trust anyone if you have met them only online."
     I hate to agree with these statements as total truth but as I have had many painful online experiences that resemble that of countless other users, who have placed trust in online people who have proved to have violated that trust. I have seen too many people who have not been what they and their devoted followers, have claimed that they were. In person, is is easier (unless you have trouble reading nonverbal cues), to determine if another person's body language and demeanor point to ulterior motives and social masking, indicating deceit. It is simply so much easier to fake it and deceive, online and safely behind a computer screen and to use ostensibly nice and friendly behavior to gain the trust of people before scamming you.
     I think that most of us perceive and treat online friends differently from in-person, offline friends. In real life, I seriously doubt that any of us would approach a stranger or someone whom we don't know well, and tell them, "Hello, --------------------------, I'm adding you to my contacts because someone has suggested you to me and because we have mutual friends." But many of us do this very thing online, to connect with new online contacts. We "add" other users as "friends." What does it mean to be or have Facebook friends vs. offline, in-person friends? How did "friend" ever become a verb? Now, we say that we "friend" or "unfriend" people! In "real life," if any of us approached people the way we do on social networks, "friending" new users, it would be called stalking. But I think this sort of behavior is a online habit among us who have causes where we seek to raise awareness for, or who who have businesses and are seeking to sell products and is common among nonprofit organizations so they can shore up support and donations. "friends" on Facebook and other social networks, are often more like online acquaintances whom we correspond with.
     Another common online practice that would kill most offline friendships, is the way that, after exchanging initial friendly words with newly added people, we never speak to each other again. This has happened to me so often that I have come to expect it. It is like I add so many of these users and they apparently forget that they have ever connected with me. I don't know if this is because of their default homepage settings where they create "friends lists" where my posts do not show up in many newsfeeds, have "hidden" my posts from view, or use social networks sporadically. But it makes me wonder, Why did I "friend" these people in the first place?
     The fact that we see online friends as separate from offline friends is the way that we so often handle differences with online friends. So many users are quick to use the "Unfriend" button and, less often, the "Block" and even the "Report" button for things that we would much more readily forgive an offline, "real-life" friend for. In real life, we are much more prone to work out differences and bear with each other, where online, users are much less likely to give other users  benefit of the doubt, and to use the "Unfriend," and even the "Block" or "Report" buttons. For example, last year, a public scandal in the life of a certain politician erupted and his reputation was destroyed, even though he expressed contrition for his actions. Nevertheless, many of his Twitter "followers" quickly deserted him. If these "followers" had known this politician offline, I daresay they would have been more disposed to give him the benefit of the doubt and stand by him. In my experience, I have often been "unfriended," sometimes "blocked," and in a known recent case, I have been "reported," because of offensive posts or private messages. I'm sure that if these users had known me personally, they would have been more likely to work out our differences and be reconciled.
     I knw that many users use social networks only to "have fun" and keep up with family and friends and want no part of causes. In a way, I don't blame them a bit! Yet in a troubled, embattled, dying world like ours, I see it as morally unacceptable to "leave the world alone" and not embrace any cause or make some attempt to make a difference to the best of one's ability. And the price for raising awareness and advocacy are that we have to open ourselves up to people, all kinds of people whom we may not otherwise, and it poses a challenge to protect ourselves and our social networks even as we seel to make a difference. This is why, sadly, as the users whose statuses I paraphrased earlier, we so often encounter the darker side of social networking and the shallowness and the pretense so often seen on social networks.
     Online self-expression are often easier than offline self-expression. I think many people are like me; it is often easier to open up and express ourselves online than offline. In "real life," I often clam up, especially in group settings of any kind. But online, I have felt more comfortable in self-expression, revealing things that I have never felt comfortable saying to most people whom I have known personally. The dark side of this is that it is easy to overshare online and I have often seen users share things about themselves that I felt were not anyone's business, including mine. I find it difficult to tell, sometimes, what many users mean by what they post, and it drives me crazy when they beg for help and don't provide any context.
     Online, I find that it is much easier to find people who share my values and my goals. The tradeoffs are that, almost always, these are people who are located far from me and have no shared history with me. With many people in "real life," there is usually more proximity and more shared history, but often we do not share many values or goals in common. For example, online, I know of people who have shown much support for my causes but have proved to be unavailable when I feel the need to contact them with questions. Offline, most of my family, friends and acquaintances, are those who see no need to support any causes and see what I do as useless and that I should leave my efforts to "the experts."
     In my current petition campaign, I know that I take it personally and feel it as a "slap in the face" when people show no support for my petition or make any effort to educate themselves as to its importance through reading the text in my petition on the page. I have thousands of "friends" but only hunderds of signatures, many not even from these in my network. Most people, depending on their default settings (unless they have "hidden" me in their newsfeeds), who use Facebook or other social networks regularly, no doubt have seen my posts about my petition. And yet, many seem to simply be ignoring it. I suspect that these "nonsupporters" may feel that their signatures don't count, feel that I may "hit them up" later for donations (despite my disclaimers), may not trust me, or may not even know about autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and don't care to learn. And so many, I fear, have their own agendas and causes and are happy to see me support them, but are not willing to support mine.
These "nonsupporters" usually don't know me, and I doubt that they value their relationships with me and so where they are concerned, expectations need to be kept low. One user bluntly posted on my "Birthday wish" "event" page, "I don't do petitions."
      Social networks often unmask the real motives and thoughts of those whom we know in "real life." In my online experiences, many local "friends" and some relatives, have "unfriended" me without notice, and in one known case, one has blocked me totally. In every one of thse cases, I did not suspect that anything was amiss in my relationships with these people until I added them to my online networks and found myself removed from theirs. And it is well-documented that many marriages have been ruined when when one souse has uncovered evidence or secrets about the other spouse online. And It is also well-known that many people have lost their jobs when their bosses or co-workers have learned things about them online. Social networks have forever changed how we relate to each other.
      Social networks are neither good or bad. They are just a tool. Behind social networks are people who use them, either for good or for evil. Because so many use social networks for evil, we who use them for good need to be even more discerning about everyone we meet online, realizing that all other users need to be equally discerning in relating to us. But in our discernment and healthy skepicism, let's not miss the the good, honest, caring, trustworthy people who are using the networks for good.