Social Networking: the Bad and the Good

     We are always, it seems, focusing on the dark side of the Internet and on social networks and there are extremely valid reasons for doing so. I have often posted about many negative experiences that I have witnessed or experienced. And, if we listen even casually to the news, we have hear too often about Internet crimes, including those committed by the "Craigslist Killer," the sometimes tragic outcomes known to befall especially younger people who meet others online and especially for romantic purposes and the suicides motived by online bullying. The use of Internet pornography has ruined or at least soured countless marriages. And this is not to mention that social networks, especially Facebook, have ruined many relationships, including marriages (aside from pornography). And then social networks have given predaors many more tools to work with, making for many more avenues for human trafficking and child pornography.
     The media and the leaders of the Church (the community of people of faith) also often warn us about the dangers of the use of the Internet and especially social networks. The concern is especially something called "Internet addiction." Heavy use of the Internet can be very addicting as there is virtually NO limit to what a user can do online, the more computer-savvy one is. This heavy use of the Internet can blind a person to everything else, even to those things one normally cares about and enjoys. This is why Church leaders advise people, especially during Lent, to take "Facebook breaks," "social networking breaks" or "Internet breaks." Even at this time, family members have expressed concern and frustration that my absorption in my petition campaign and my associated activities that are going with it, including Internet marketing, awareness and  my fairly new website (as yet under construction) and that is not to mention the commitment of this blogspot, maintaining it so that I post here twice a week. All this can be time-consuming, especially if there are bugs, glitches or issues, including interpersonal ones. And yes, we should be on our guard against overuse of the Internet or the use of social networks as a substitute for a social life in the "real world." And this is much tougher for those of us who are not socially inclined or simply shy but who enjoy connecting with people online. It is a temptation for me!
     And then there is the serious issue of the widespread atmoshere is lies, deception and fake users as the Internet makes it easy to hide behind one's computer screen. Privacy settings are wonderful but they make it easy for fakes, crooks, scammers, predators and other bad guys or gals, to hide behind their computer screens. And it is quite difficult to tell the the bad guys or gals apart from good, honest, trustworthy users. So many users can claim to be something they are not or, even if real, falsify or embellish their claims or experiences for reasons known only to them. In this atmosphere of suspicion, other users are often not likely to give one the benefit of the doubt if there are suspicions or concerns. After all, it is "just social networking," right?
     As for as connecting to nonprofits whose presence is mainly online and whom I learned about only through social networks, the experience almost always has been negative when I have tried to connect with them on a deeper level other than as a distant supporter. I know that this may say as much about me as much about thse nonprofits, for in each case, I may have "overshared" about my challenges and medical conditions in the name of openness and honesty. Instead of commending me for these qualities, these nonprofits apparently were scared off by my revelations. These dismissals have only triggered my memories of the past when both adults, with emotional abuse and peers, with their bullying, suggested that I was not "good enough." But getting back to encounters, including nonprofits, being only online, it seems that such encounters cause the parties involved to lose credibility more easily. This is because we don't have access to many nonverbal cues that can help us get to know people. It is also because we don't have a shared history with people we have met just online and so it is easier to dismiss them than people whom we "know personally."
     And there is the frequent observation and yes, experience, that social networking can, as we see others post self-serving material about their accomplishments and their advantages, cause us to assume that the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence." And there are the insensitive and even unkind posts that can cause pain or break hearts. For example, if you're grieving the loss of a baby by any means, will you want to see posts or photos showing off cute little babies? And if you are unable to conceive, are you going to want to see pregnancy jokes status updates or photos of pregnant women or newborns? And if you have a brain injury, will you appreciate a slur calling a criminal "brain-damaged" to express disgust for that person? And if your child or loved one has an intellectual disability, will you appreciate the word "retard" being used even as a harmless joke? While it is great that social networks give people almost total control over who they can add, how much the other user can interact with them, who they can remove from their contacts, block or report, these features can hurt many feelings and cause ill will and even make enemies who "go off the deep end" and "snap" at the offending user.
     Yet, in spite of all this, there are good things and priceless things that the Internet and social networks have brought. While the Internet has given predators and sex offenders more tools to work with and seem to have spawned more missing people, rapes, human trafficking and even murder, much of this may actually be that there is more awareness of thse evils that have been going on for a long time but which have been surrounded by ignorance and codes of silence. If the information age and the Internet have never come about, we may still be ignorant about thse evils and to our own peril. While the Internet has given bullies and abusers more tools to work with, much of what seems to be much worsened bullying may just be more awareness about what was once called a "rite of passage" and "just a part of being a kid." And even more, with the coming of the Internet and this information age, there is much more awareness and talking about disabilities, especially invisible ones like autism, that once were shrouded in ignorance and almost total silence. Many say that children and teens today have it worse than children and teens of my generation did. As far as Internet crimes and the increase of many temptations go, I certainly agree. Our bullies did not have the Internet to work with so online bullying was not an issue, and we did not have access to many of the things that create much more peer pressures for young peope today. On the other hand, because of the ignorance and codes of silence that surrounded so many of the things that we now know much more about and talk about today, we often suffered in silence, blamed ourselves and felt alone in certain life situations. Sexual offenses were not considered crimes unless they involved violence and so if you were sexually abused or assaulted, too bad. If you were extensively bullied, it was a "rite of passage" and if it got out of hand, it was the bully victim that tended to get the blame. And if you had invisible disabilities that did not have proper diagnoses tools or interventions, you had to endure much misunderstanding, abuse, stigma, even trauma and may have been robbed of a childhood or an education. Thus, it cannot really be said that the young today have it better or worse than any other generation had it. Every generation has its own struggles and challenges and every generation has its own advantages.
     Above all, the Internet has allowed many of us to find sources of support such as so many of us have never known, as we are able to find users who share our passions and concerns. I have seen how families who face the trauma of missing people find so much support, caring and resources because of social networks and the Internet. I have seen it over and over again and I see it every time I get online and see families interact. The "world of the missing," according to "authorities" on missing persons awareness, consist of the families themselves, victims of crime (epecially if they themselves were once missing) and trained advocates such as those who hold ties with nonprofits. Related to this is how so many who call themselves survivors of crime or various forms of abuse, have often found encouragement and forums to share survival stories that were long kept secret because, in the past, people "do not talk about those things." This community is extremely close-knit and, in a way, it is sad that it takes the tragedy of a missing loved one or a common passion for them to bind people together. But what did families with missing loved ones and many victims of crime do before the Internet?
     In the same way, the Internet has been invaluable for so many people with disabilities, in awareness, support and resources.  Before this time of information, awareness and talking about issues, many disabilities, especially invisible ones, were surrounded by so much ignorance and codes of silence and much stigma. This has been especially the case for the autism community, where the proliferation of groups has enabled people to connect with each other in cyberspace. And the numerous forums and encouragement to share "disability stories" has done so much so undo stigma and increase awareness as people share stories of things that once were hushed up because "we don't talk about things like that." I have been using social networks for not much longer than two years and it has been an education; above all, it is the main reason I have, over time, been slowly finding the courage to share parts of my story that lend themselves to awareness for my petition or enhance posts for this blogspot or any of my other materials. The Internet is a priceless tool for self-expression, spreading awareness about causes we care about, sharing one's faith if you are a person of faith, and a great way to connect with people whom we cannot otherwise connect with.
     It is all in how we use the Internet and social networks; will we use them for good or for evil?
    
    

Social Networking: Does It Breed Narcissism?

     One day, I was scrolling through my Facebook homepage where a user posted something like this: "Really, Facebook should be called Fakebook as all you're going to see of its users are their best photos. All we see of people on here is what they are at their best. It's an illusion." I posted in the "Comments" section about how much I agreed with this person on this matter.
     I have observed that users on social networks are focused on doing everything they can to place themselves in the best light. We talk about wearing our "Sunday best" when we attend worship services and while I'm NOT comparing using social networking with attending worship services, it seems that we have a "social networking best" as well. And so many users seem to be bent on impressing other users wth their accomplishements, credentials and just who they are. Now I understand that when people are trying to grow their for-profit or nonprofit organizations or are trying to market their causes, that much of this is essential to get business or supporters. After, as is said so often, we have "only one chance to make a good first impression."
     I see so many users who post photos and posts about their babies and I understand the urge to "show off" one's darling offspring to the world. But so many people, including those who do not have children or who cannot produce offspring, might be hurt or at least annoyed by such posts, depending on their own situations. If you are a user who is struggling with infertility and are unable to conceive, the last thing you probably want to see is others posting photos of their cute babies. It screams out: "Look at what I have!" It's like you are expected to be an infertile person celebrating other's children; this is the message these posts can send to such people or to others unable to become parents for other reasons. Users who have lost babies may also be hurt or retraumatized by seeing these photos, especially if their loss is recent.  And aside from that, for parents who post these baby photos, there is the safety and privacy issue to consider, as online predators lurk, unseen and unknown, behind their computer screens and who can guarantee that they cannot see the cute photos? Such posts have sometimes annoyed me as well as have saddened me, as often, when I see them, I'm reminded that babies and young children will not be in my future.
     Many months ago, a user posted about her machanical talents. In a transparent effort to show off her prowess in this area, this user posted about her washing machine, how it broke down and how she was able to fix it on her own. Gleefully and most childlike, this user posted: "I have fixed my broken washing machine by myself and now it is fixed! Yes, I am boasting!" Amused by this status update, , I saw it as no big deal except that users who lack such talent and have to hire machanics to do repairs for them, may be annoyed by such a post and especially if their budgets are tight.
     Many users, in their "About Me" or "Info" sections of profiles or pages, list such a list of accomplishments or places they travel, that I feel that my own life is lackluster as compared to theirs and that I have done nothing with it. Some users post such extensive lists of accomplishments and places they travel, and their life experiences, that frankly, I find it hard to believe these claims that many make about themselves. Maybe this is just me but I think so much of it is the way social networks make it so easy for people to present themselves any way they please online. And when I see these claims and believe them, I admit to experience feelings of jealousy toward these users for being able to "soar as advocates," with social connections, financial resources and opportunities that I can only dream of, and which would certainly help in my current petition campaign!
     One Facebook user posted a thinly-veiled reference to her financially rewarding career. No doubt this user was happy at this time and wanted to share this happiness with all. "I must admit," this person boasted, " that I enjoy the financial rewards that I get every week!" Another time, this user declared, "Wow! I'm seeing a big windfall coming!" I felt both amused and a wee bit jealous.
     At one time, a user in my Facebook network changed her profile photo. When I saw this photo, I was rather startled and wondered if what I saw was genuine or "doctored." This user had put up a photo where she graced the covers of Forbes magazine. What kind of statement was this user trying to make? And how was she able to make the cover of this magazine, if in fact that really happened?
     Earlier this year, I was most annoyed by one Facebook user and this person's transparent show of narcissism as shown on this user's profile and Facebook page. This user ostensibly was spearheading a movement whose stated mission was noble. However, this person's profile and page, even if casually checked, told a different story of what this user seemed to be about. For both this person's profile and her page showed many "glamor shots" of her and I could not understand what this had to do with this user's stated mission. If this user made it her practice to put up all these "glamor shots" in order to generate support and donations, she most certainly succeeded! This person's page added many thousands of "fans" within days! And on her profile, this user got countless posts of support and affection from adoring supporters. I experienced feelings of jeaousy o this person even as I could see these transparent gestures of self-promotion on her part. I believed in this user's cause and while I certainly am not judging her heart or her motives, behavior such as she has shown says a lot! This user reflects this shallow culture and our often phony values. While I know that packaging is part of marketing one's cause and mission, when it is taken too far as I believe happened in this user's case, credibility is lost.
     Last year, one the eve of this user's birthday, she kept checking her birthday greeting as I kept getting Facebook notifications that this user has posted a "Thank you!" on one birthday greeting after another, as received. And the following day, this continued. This user kept checking in and responding to her greetings with "thank you's" and affectionate symbols. Sounding much like school days when we compted to see who would get the most Valentine Day's greetings? This user was only one example of many who made it a point to check it around and on their birthdays as their birthday greetings poured in from users in their social networks. Yes, I understand that seeing hundreds of posts wishing a user happy birthday would be, at the very least, a temporary boost to one's self-esteem. I can't blame any user for this childlike behavior. Social networks are a place where many users seek support, friendship and affirmation that they may not find in their offline lives.
     While I know that Facebook always gives page owners full control over who can post on their pages, I have been put off by how controlling some page owners can be and how little interaction they permit their "fans." Yes, I know that page owners that trun pages for business or nonprofits need to keep their pages focus on their products or missions. But I have seen some page ownners who I think take this too far and who are running personal or "community" pages. Social interaction on such pages are limited only to sharing their content or expressions of support for them or their material. I was not only annoyed but angry when I tried to email one such page owner via her contact information on her page. I emailed her twice, requesting that she post a petition that bore a good measure of relevance to the purpose of her page as it involved the people she is advocating for. I didn't get any response. So, after about a month, I posted a link to this petition, twice, in the "Comments" area on this person's posts (as I could not post on her page). The following day, I was aghast to see that she posted a status update, politely but firmly saying that external links were not allowed on her page and that she would consider such links by email and post them IF they fit in with her mission. Apparently, the petition did not fit her criteria. Angered by what I saw as self-promotion, I deleted myself from her page, on both my accounts. More recently, I sought this user's support with my own petition, which also is to benefit those she advocates for. To make a long story short, my attempts failed completely and the person not only refused to support my petition campaign, but has banned me from her page on my first account and has told me, "I don't ever want to hear from you again!"  Right or wrong in my attempts to garner this user's support, her response shows that many users use social networks solely for very specific agendas with little room for those with other agendas.
     Most recently, some users have been uploading and posting photos of their certificates and honors which they have won, or their children have won,  and which I'm sure they have worked hard for and deserve. I know that many users have made it a point to proudly display their awards or honors or accolades won by their children. And I know that this is the time of graduations from different levels of education. And I'm sure these users who display their honors or those of their children, assume that everyone will share in their happiness. While I certainly understand wanting to share one's happiness with the world, not everyone is able to do those things signified by these honors. Many people will never be able to graduate from college because of lack of funds or learning differences or for other reasons. Struggling advocates and small nonprofits lack the funds and resources that can empower their missions to soar and put them in the position to do the things that awards like these signify. "Oh, people who begrudge those who win awards or honors like these are just jealous, resentful or childish!" some may object. "Get a life!" There may be some truth to this, but why incite others to such things? And as many awards and honors come with generous financial stipends, sharing about these, in my opinion, is especially insensitive to small nonprofits and advocates with limited resources and who are struggling to "make their voices bigger."
     Showing support for each other's causes on Facebook, in personal networks, should go both ways. In my current petition campaign, I have set up a "My Birthday Wish" online "event" on the "event" page of Facebook in order to promote my petition. I created the page in the hope of reaching as many people in my networks as possible. Even after all my efforts to stress that this "event" was merely an online effort to promote my petition, that it was NOT a fundraiser, and that people had control over the privacy of their signatures, I saw many more "Declines" to my "event" than those who marked "Joined." Granted, some who marked "Declined" DID sign my petition and not all who marked "Joined" actually signed the petition. Yes, I could understand why those outside the US have not been supporting my petition, even though I stressed that even they could still help by sharing the petition by finding it on my Facebook page (giving them the link). But others in the US? "I don't do petitions," one user said. Well, there was nothing I could do about a user like that; months ago, another user had told me, "You causes are lovely, but I can't support them." And yet, a good number of these "nonsupporters" have been enlisting my support for their own causes, petitions and are sending me invitations to games and other applications. It makes me wonder: Does the give-and-take of relations not apply, at least to some extent, to online relationships?
     And in my petition campaign, I guard against coming across as a self-promoter and like those who call for support for their own causes but who won't reciprocate when others seek support from them. For I have always gone out of my way to show support for others' causes and petitions, though I know that a few users have deleted me because they felt "snubbed" by me. Actually, in these cases I have not seen or noticed these user's causes.
     Actually, social networks are neither good or bad; the users behind these networks are what make them what they are. For social networks are people.

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.

    
    

Social Networking: Does it Encourage Narcissism?

          Yesterday, I logged in to Facebook and saw a post that prefaced the user's status with the remark that Facebook should really be called "fakebook" because its users so often put up their best photos and use the social network to showcase their accomplishments. Wholly agreeing with this, I posted a comment saying how right this person was. Ironically, however, the user posted a photo that was obviously designed to get the attention of other users and to generate comments, which it did. Like the user, I have to plead guilty to posting things that are at least partially motivated to gain attention, even though, for privacy and safety reasons, I keep off social networks photos of myself and my family or most of my sensitive information. And yes, when my posts fail to generate comments and I feel ignored I feel disenchanted with social networking.
          As an example of annoying personal posting, take that of posts abourt babies or children. Now I fully understand how and why parents, especially new ones, are proud of their babies and children and want to show them off to the world. Aside from the privacy and safety issue of wrong, predatory eyes seeing these precious cuties, posts of them are insnsitive to those users who have lost a baby, especially recently. Also, such posts can be hurtful to those who are unable to conceive children or carry to term. I have seen lots of posts on my homepage. Though they can be annoying, I have "liked" a number of these posts. Yet such posts also serve as a reminder that holding and enjoying a baby or small child will never be mine again. Posts where parents, justifiably proud of their children's accomplishments in school or extracurricular activities can be hurtful to those who are raising children who are developmentally disabled and can't do these things. Even in the autism community, there is a sometimes bitter division between those high-functioning adults with autism and parents with high-functioning autistic children, who are justly proud of their accomplishments and like to share them, and families of those with severe, classic autism. However, one day a mom, who has a severely autistic child, vented about this and posted something like this: "What about severe, classic autism? Does anyone find THIS kind of autism inspiring?"
           Facebook is a haven for people who like to showcase their accomplishments, major or minor. One day, I logged in and I saw one person post this: "My washing machine was broken but I was able to fix it all by myself. Yes, I am boasting!" I was amused and am still amused. But posts that really annoy me are those where people proudly post about the places where they have just traveled. For example, when one person in my networking was traveling accross the country, those of us in this person's network got updated on each state the person had just traveled to. What do such posts do for users whose life circumstances don't allow them to travel even out of their home state's for one weekend?
           In their "About Me" and Info" sections on their profiles or pages, a good number of people showcase their accomplishments as resumes for the world to see. They list so many accomplishements that I feel that, next to them, I have done nothing with my life in comparison. For example, on one person's Facebook page, this person spends many paragraphs walking the person's "fans" through the person's numerous accomplishments. The list was so extensive and long that I still have a tough time believing that this list is totally authentic and not embellished. I admit to feeling terrible jealousy of this person for being fortunate to have these opportunities, the social connections to access them in the first place and the financial rewards that had to have resulted from these achievements.
           Some online boasts are more amusing and childlike than anything and to this day, make me smile. Months ago, one person posted this: "Wow! I'm feeling a big windfall coming!" A few weeks or so later, this person apparently couldn't resist sharing: "I must admit that I love the financial rewards that I receive every week!" Of course, such posts do little for those with low-paying jobs or who are on fixed incomes but provoke possible jealousy of this person posting.
          People on my page often seem to have social connections and love to share these with their networks. Recently, one person in my network changed her profile photo. I was rather surprised when I saw it. She had put up a photo of herself gracing the covers of Forbes magazine. Mildly annoyed, I wondered if this was for real or a "doctored" photo.
          I have been most annoyed by a person who claims "Founder" status for a movement with a noble mission and many loyal, passionate supporters. This person has, however, used the  page and the person's profile to put up glamorous photos of  this person. And the person's business page has been named after the person and not the mission. While I believed in the genuinessness and worth of the movement and all that it stands for, I had issues with this person's self-presentation. But if this person used self-promotion to generate donations and supporters for a worthy cause, this was hugely successful. However, I felt terrible jealousy of this person and what came off as narcissism. Now I can't see the person's heart but I can observe the person's behavior. When I posted about my concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the events surrounding this movement being used for actual programs, the person in question abruptly severed all ties with me without disclosure. It's so sad that, in our image-conscious, celebrity culture, it takes slick packaging to generate support for the noblest of causes and that there are consequences for anyone who challenges this.
          Birthday wishes and how many a user gets, can be a popularity contest. Last year, one user in my network, a popular person, started getting greetings well before her special day. This person would post periodic status updates about feeling happy about getting so many greetings. On this person's birthday, the person apparently checked the person's page for greetings and would keep posting statuses and comments of thanks. There have been a number of other users who would approach their birthdays greetings much this way. I understanding that gettings hundreds of birthday greetings can mae one feel better about one's self, so I can understand some user's childlike excitement about being flooded with birthday greetings on their special day.
          While I know that Facebook gives its users full control over who can post or comment on their pages or profiles, it seems that many users take it too far and are heavy-handed in their approach. I understand that business owners and nonprofits must keep their pages clear and focused and are not using social networks to socialize; I appreciate it when such parties just lock up their pages so no one can write on them. But nothing annoys me like people who give lip service to social interaction, set their pages so you can post but remove posts without disclosure. My annoyance gets aroused when I post positive and helpful links or comments or share my blog or page, only to return to these pages and see that my posts are removed. I quickly "unlike" such pages where I'm not permitted to interact or share my blogspot or my page. A few months ago, I emailed a person, sending the person a link for a petition that I thought was important to the person and her fans. I waited for a response for weeks. As the person's page is locked so no one can post there, I posted the link to that petition there, twice, in comment threads. A day later, the person posted a nice but firm status update, saying no more links on "off-topic" items and that the person didn't "have time" to respond personally to emails, and so forth. Put off by the person's non-response to my concern, I instantly hit the "unlike" option on both my accounts. And another thing that I don't like is when people call me a spammer and tell me not to post anything on their pages. This has been happening more and more. I want to retort: "Why in the world did you add me if you are going to restrict my ability to socialize with you?"
          Social networking can so easily become a popularity contest with the emphasis being on image and numbers. It is like a return to middle school and can bring out insecurities from the past; I know this from experience. In my first year on Facebook, I paid too much attention to my friend list count. Now that I have a blogspot and a page, I'm tempted to pay too much attetion to my "follower" and "fan" count. But I have found out, the hard way, that such parties can abandon you without disclosure
or explanation. A high friend, follower or fan count does not mean having many real friends. In fact, it seems the higher the count the fewer real friends one may have.
          A sad fact about social networks is that is that authenticity, openness, honesty and moral courage are not rewarded. When exhibited, it seems that other users are quick to hit the "Unfriend," "Block" or even "Report" options. Social networks reward those with name recognition, who know how to package themselves, and who showcase their accomplishments and put "their best feet forward" and who have money to put up sponsored ads. These parties are the ones who get the most "likes" and comments on their statuses and who get the most "fans" for their pages and "followers" for their blogspots. Just today, when I opened my email inbox, Facebook sent me an email with the title, "Your Page Needs More Fans!" It was a sales pitch to me to pay them to promote my page.
          In stark contrast to the narcissism of, slickness, self-seeking and phony values so often seen not only online but offline, stand the values of the Person Whose last days many people of faith focus on during Holy Week. The Son of God's values and life on Earth, according to the four Gospels in the Bible, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, consist of these: He was always devoted to and obedient to God His Father, showed compassion for all in need, hung out with outcasts and people that others rejected and looked down on, refused to show off His greatness and power and showed fearlessness and moral courage and standing up to evil and injustice. Eventually, His moral courage and unconventional ways earned Him death on a cross, but God His Father rewarded Him by bringing Him back to life in a historical resurrection and then calling Him Lord and King. I don't know if, had He come today to live on Earth, Jesus would use social networks or how He would do it, but I know that since His thoughts are not my thoughts and His ways are not my ways, that while many others are put off by honesty, truth, free speech and reality, He is not.
          Thank You, Jesus.
          
         
      

Our Throwaway Culture

          For the longest time, the divorce rate, at least in the US, had stood at 50 percent; that is, if you "tied the knot," you would have a 50/50 chance to "untie that knot." Now, that divorce rate has risen to 60 percent. Statistically, this means that if you get married, you are rather more likely than not, at some point, to call it quits.
          Employers devise more screening tools to manage all the applications that cross their desks. One of these tools is the personality test; this effectively prunes applicants from the list which the employers has to deal with. You probably know very well what this means: You can work your rear-end off to make your application stand out to an employer so you will get thay interview, knowing that yours is only one of many applications to cross that employer's desk.
          CEO's see their profit margins drop and they see a need to do some pruning so their corporations don't go bankrupt. So what do they tend to do, short of filing for a bankruptcy? They look at all the employees who are costing them money and thet start pruning jobs and eliminating employees. The trouble with this is that behind every job is a person who needs that job just to survive and usually to support a family. Not only this, but but jobs often provide health insurance, a chance to meet people and self-esteem as one makes a contribution to society. All this is lost with a lost job.
          Many of us use social networks to connect with people. But according to my research, "unfriending" people is getting more and more common on Facebook. When we are offended or annoyed by an online friend's posts, is is easy to hit that "Unfriend" button or even use the "Block" option. In not even two years of social networking, hundreds of people in my network have hit the "Unfriend" button to get rid of me and some have hit the "Block" button. Among those who have dropped me include advocates, fellow church members, including a pastor's wife and youth workers, other local acquaintances and even some family members. I have been unfriended and blocked just this past weekend! On social networks, you can get rid of undesirable people with a few clicks of a mouse!
          More and more, without labor unions to protect employees, employers can terminate employees that they don't like or want to deal with for reasons know best to themselves. I've heard of too many people being terminated without disclosure or given vague reasons. This has happened to me and to some of my loved ones. Worst of all, if discrimination is suspected, it sometimes can't be proved. Sadly, employers find it easy to get rid of employees for disability-related reasons. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is meant to give a level playing field to qualified people with disabilities and it is having success. But the "undue hardship" clause in this legislation, meant to protect employers, can be overused as an excuse to fire people because of prejudice.
          In families, relationships often become ugly because of disputes over inheritances. When money becomes a factor in even the closest of relationships, it often changes the dynamics of the relationship. And when unprincipled, unethical relatives cheat loved ones out of their inheritances, this parts the closest of family members and turns them into bitter enemies. Always sad and heartbreaking, family members have been known to disown each other, to never speak again, and even to take each other to court! I know this from experience!
          Homelessness is heartbreaking and a good number of the homeless are war veterans. How many of these homeless are people are living in the streets not because they lack money but for more complex reasons? How many people are living in the steets because family members have ordered them to leave because they could not deal with them for one more minute, whether because of substance abuse, an unwanted pregnancy or some despised lifestyle? When I was attending a former congregation, some among us would reach out to one such woman who was seen to wander the streets because of being "thrown out" of her home. Of course, there are no easy answers to this.
          The ultimate method of getting rid of people is murder. Since 1973, girls and women, when faced with unwanted pregnancies, have had the option of "terminating their pregnances" available to them by law. The trouble with this option is that the thing being eliminated is not a thing at all but a live, conceived baby with all its DNA and a little being being "knit together" in the mother by its Creator. This "abortion mentality" has opended the door to people turning to murder, more and more, to get rid of "problems." When we become inconvenient, annoying, difficult or undesirable, we are, more and more, at risk. So many murders have, at the motive, the simple desire to eliminate a person for the killer's own reasons. Such murders are often staged "eraser killings" where the killer makes the murder look like a suicide, a mysterious disappearance or something other than what it is. Can this be why we have so many unsolved crimes and missing people? Chilling.
           Get the point? Ours is a throwaway society. Our method of dealing with problems and conflict is often just to "walk out" of the bothersome relationships and to end them. We often hear about and may even talk about, the virtues of real friendship and sticking together through think and thin, despite differences, disagreements, or adversity. But in reality, when relationships get inconvenient, annoying, burdensome, or merely boring, they become vulnerable to being discarded like trash. Instead of dealing with what's wrong in relationships, it's far too easy to end friendships, to change churches, to quit jobs, even to dissolve marriages. Our culture encourages us to leave relationships we no longer want to be in. The idea of "marriage for keeps," though it is Biblical and strongly encouraged in the Bible, tends to be dismissed as old-fashioned, outdated and unrealistic. Abortion is seen as socially acceptable by many people and is seen by some as a way to reduce poverty and other social ills by "thinning out our ranks" and reducing our numbers. When someone in our church home hurts our feelings, when we can't stand our boss or our co-workers, when a friend won't pay a debt, when an employee's work slows down, when an online friend posts controversial material, many voices will encourage us, "Get out! End the relationship! Eliminate your problem! It's your perfect right."
          In my own experience with this, people have, over the years and often, terminated their bonds with me, either because of misunderstandings, their unkind reactions to my differences, or my trusting them too readily and mistaking friendliness with ulterior motives with real friendship. Growing up, I went through seeing my parents divorce and I know many others who have divorced. I've already mentioned, in earlier blogs, about being terminated as a volunteer in several intances. I've already mentioned all the online friendships I've lost. Most recently, my membership for a certain movement and campaign was abruptly terminated by its Founder when this person found out about about one of my online posts which raised questions about the cost-effectiveness about the use of its funds. On the flip side of this, I have left certain social settings where I felt misunderstood or excluded.
           I know that there are times when we need to, or must, let certain relationships go and I'm not talking about these. But how can we be united unless we stand together and stick together through all the things that could divide us? This is especially important in our throwaway culture.
           On the reverse side of this, I find few things more inspiring than that of seeing people who have been married for many decades, sticking together through all manner of hardships, losses, challanges, conflicts and uncertainties.
         

Advocates and Causes and Social Networking

          What is an advocate? Growing up, I got the idea that an advocate was a person who spoke before legislators and lobbied them to get laws passed on behalf of those whom they were speaking for. When that word came to mind I would think of lawyers or other trained professionals with official ties to nonprofit or for-profit organizations. But in these days of the "information age" mass media and social networking, it has become clear that making a difference in this world has become much more accessible to us and that advocacy is not just for professionals or for those with the money and time to influence the powerful.
         Yes, in my younger days, years before social networking existed and before I discovered  this social networking, I would write letters to legislators on behalf of those vulnerable groups of people for whom I felt laws need to be changed for. I would occasionally circulate offline, paper petitions and participate in sporadic fundraising projects. But two years ago, I discovered social networking and especially, Facebook. And I saw something of what advocacy is. At that time, I was trying to bury my past and to "put it behind me" by trying to forget, since I could make no sense of it, there was no word for many of my experiences and no community that I could identify with concerning my experiences. In other words, no sense of belonging. So, as a way of what psychologists would call "sublimation" or using one's inner conflicts by channeling them into positive action, I got interested in following true crime cases and missing person cases as I viewed a few on television. This was a way of getting my mind off my apparently unsolvable, unexplainable problems. Plus, I knew that serious crime could very well happen to my family and me and that I wanted to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem by inactivity. Plus, I knew the Scriptural principle that "If a man does not hear the cries of others in need, he cannot expect others to hear his cries in his own time of need." At the time, I was disgusted with the media for devoting hours to celebrities while they gave only minutes to missing people. I was frustrated with them for their tendency to sensationalize the few cases they did cover. So, because of these reasons, I set up a Facebook account and began "friending" those whose profiles indicated that they were advocates for the missing, exploited and the abused, or whose profiles indicates that they had missing loved ones.
          All I can say is that entering the world of advocates through social networking has proved to be a lively education in itself. First, I learned, by trial and error, the right and wrong things to say that convey sensitivity and support for the families of missing loved ones or who had other needs, and what offended them or drove them away, making them see one as one of "the bad guys" even if I was just trying to help. I rarely had trouble with family members of the missing or murdered. The exception was a person who had a missing young person who was found deceased in a matter of months. Initially, I was on great terms with this person but this person became greatly angered with me one day with I posted on this person's page about a missing child who was also in this person's state. We exchanged messages that amounted to an online shouting match and the person's threat to have me reported and "stopped" because I was one of the "bad guys" and an "abuser" of families of the missing.
          Advocates have shown themselves to be quite a mixture in their ability to tolerate differences. Early on, I learned, the painfully hard way, that there are quite a few advocates who have chips on their shoulders and little tolerance for differences and were quick to "give you the boot" and remove me from their networks, if they disliked my beliefs, my posts or my posts on their pages about my causes. When I was still new to Facebook, I posted on the page of a person who was a respected missing person advocate, sharing the posters of two "cold case" missing children whom I hoped that this person would circulate among those in this person's own social networks. I checked this person's page a while later, hoping that I had an effect. I did, but not the effect I wanted! The posts were removed. Upset, I sent a messagge to the person, attaching the links to my message and appealing to the person to share them. The person responded but not in a friendly way, chewing me out for imposing my cases and my agenda on this person, and so forth. Again, our messages back and forth became an online shouting match that resulted in this person blocking me, apparently for good. Lesson learned? Do not engage those who disagree with you online, as people's monds are made up and online arguments are a waste of time and almost always backfire.
          I have found, in relating to advocates in my networks, that there are a number whom I count as warmly supportive and tolerant of differences and a number, like those, like the person above, who show little tolerance for differences or other beliefs or agendas. But the majority rarely, if ever, correspond with me, whether because they are "single cause" people, use social networks sporadically or for other reasons. I have found that my most awful experiences with advocates have happened when I applied for official volunteer positions with nonprofits that I learned about only online because of their online presence.
          Well over a year ago, I applied to a nonprofit that was hugely praised by many in my social networks. Craving a community to belong to and wanting to make a difference on a different level, I applied to the nonprofit, where I was asked, among other things, a disability-related question. I disclosed my epilepsy (noting that it was under control) and my Marfan's Syndrome and, in the phone interview, my undiagnosed autism spectrum condition. I was very elated and thrilled when I was told that I was accepted. I set up a new, official page for the nonprofit and its staff and volunteers "friended" me there. Almost right away, the account was hacked and those in my network received links to suspicious, "cheesy" material in my name. Soon, I grew crushed and depressed when I was abruptly told that I was "not the right fit" for the nonprofit and that I was dismissed as a volunteer. I was told that the nonprofit had issues with the dynamics of my family situation as they believed it would affect my ability to "be an asset to our organization." To make matters worse, I was told that everyone linked to this nonprofit was ordered to "unfriend" me on both my accounts. I was heartbroken to see that I was also blocked by a number of them. As this had happened during the Christmas eason, I entered into a depression that saddened my holiday. To me, this was a case of cyberbullying that was made worse by the fact that I could not prove a thing!
          A number of months ago, I applied to a second nonprofit, also one that I knew about solely from is online presence. I had corresponded with a few people who had official ties with this nonprofit and I admired their work on behalf of their chosen cause. So when they placed an online appeal for volunteers, I applied, striving for honesty and transparency in my application, though I saw the screening process as intrusive and excessive for someone who, in my case, was asking for the opportuntity to do online activites for the nonprofit. I also included a heartfelt piece that I hoped would explain my answers to the disability-related question on the application and any "red flags" that the nonprofit may find in my background. I hoped that I could receive empathy and understanding and a volunteer opportunity. After weeks of waiting, I got a curt phone call where I was told, unequivocally, that the nonprofit had no interest in my volunteer services. As this experience also happened around the holidays, I was left deeply distressed, disillusioned and turned off to the very idea of ever offering my volunteer services to another nonprofit. To this day, those in my network who have official ties to this nonprofit or who are its staunchest supporters, have stopped any form of communication with me. To this day, I remain leery of nonprofits that I learn about only online.
          It's because of my experiences with these two nonprofits that I remain a "self-directed" volunteer or advocate who works on my own, with no official ties to any nonprofit. I'm often mage aware that those who have official ties to nonprofits (and my network is full of them!) enjoy friendships, social connections, a sense of belonging and appreciation and recognition for their efforts, that you have a harder time finding without official ties to any nonprofit. But I'm not about to risk the prospect of identity theft to find these things.
          Why do advocates do what they do? From my observation, there are those advocates who get into their work because of their educational backgrounds, training and skills, who do their work professionally. Many in my social network present themselves as CEO's of nonprofits. While I admire these folks to their single-minded dedication to their chosen professions, I usually don't identify with them. Then there are the many, many advocates in my network who present themselves as "survivors" whose past traumatic experiences have compelled them into advocacy. This makes sense, as a big way of finding healing and redemption from one's past lies in using it to strive to make a difference in the lives of others. This illustrates the Scriptural principle that God allows suffering in our lives so we can comfort others who suffer. And finally, there are those in my networks who are "everyday people" who share little about themselves except that they simply want to help. They are often the best advocates who are agenda-free and are often the most likely to support me back.
          As I continued social networking and got in touch with my past, I began taking on multiple causes that I identified with, such as poverty, disabilities and injustice. I still supported the cause of missing people and crime victims but it no longer is it my exclusive focus. Many in my social network are "single cause" people who focus mainly on their own passion and whom I know I can't expect to show support for my multiple causes, unless any of these "meet with" their single passion. "One cause" advocacy is understandable in many cases, even though these are not people that I consider to be friends, as any positive experience with them is based on my support of their singular causes.
          Social networking with many "locals" in my area, including family and friends, has had a way of revealing the "true colors" of so many of them. For in the course of posting about my causes, from early on, I have seen that many of them would quietly and without dislosure, remove me from their social networks. Incredibly, these online deletions came from "church members," including a pastor's wife, youth workers and several family members and others whom I believed were my "friends"! This has taught me that Facebook and other social networks do not of themselves ruin relationships. Social networking only unmasks people who already know each other personally, or think they do.
          I have found out that there are many people who want no part of social involvement or causes, whether because they don't think they have the time, don't identify with any cause, don't think they can make a difference, or just don't care. And many "church members" tend to focus exclusively on their own relationships with god, family and their congregational life, forbgetting that Jesus tells us that we will be judged by our willingness to help the less fortunate and who combined His ministry with social involvement with all kinds of needy people.
          This has been a most interesting two years.