Social media’s greatest threat is its tendency to erode critical thinking

Tolerance of different points of view and support for free speech increasingly look like conservative values in a social media world.

Van Badham.

As political ideas are increasingly affected by social media, tolerance of different points of view and support for free speech — once the overwhelming preserves of the left — increasingly look like conservative values.

The self-reinforcing nature of the Twitter pile-on or the Facebook frenzy seems to give social media activists a false sense of their own power: they can shout down people on social media. It is not real power, however: on voting day electorates have a habit of disappointing online activists. The US election and Brexit votes spring to mind.

It is difficult to determine where the real centre of opinion lies but much on social media is to the left of it. This paper’s associate editor (national affairs), Chris Kenny, a thoughtful man who worked as a political staffer for Malcolm Turnbull in opposition, struck a reasonable tone on ABC’s Q&A last Monday. Writer and political activist Van Badham, sitting next to him, not so much.

Yet on Twitter many were ­extreme in their criticism of Kenny for his defence of new senator Jim Molan. The former army general had posted on his Facebook page a year before entering politics Islamic terror material that came from extreme right-wing group Britain First. Kenny, who knows a lot about national ­security issues, said the source of the material mattered less than the fact the videos were of ­actual events.

Kenny’s argument, while true, is not helped by the fact US President Donald Trump apologised for retweeting material from the same group late last month. Yet the reaction of Badham and many on Twitter was disproportionate, virtually branding Kenny a fascist.

Kenny is a republican who supported the gay marriage reform bill and has written passionately for Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson’s constitutional reform proposals. On other issues he is more conservative, such as national ­security and asylum-seekers.

On a scale where 0 is extreme right and 100 extreme left, I would position him in the low 40s, not too far from the centre. Badham, who I have been reading for many years, would be well into the last decile on the left. She describes herself as an anarcho-communist feminist.

That’s fine in a democracy and she receives a lot of support on ­social media. But the wider electorate is probably between high 40s and low 50s at any given time.

Does social media’s left skew matter? To my mind, the tendency for Twitter’s users to coalesce unquestioningly around prominent left or right-wing tweeters and for Facebook users to post news items they agree with does raise questions about whether some users can make up their own minds on first principles.

Back to Kenny. What I know for sure is he makes up his mind issue by issue, as an adult should, and he is brave enough to stand against the tide, as good journalists should.

Same with Sky News host and Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, who is more conservative than Kenny but also fearless in ­advocating positions not always easy to predict. He can be a harsh critic of conservative politicians and was early to call for Barnaby Joyce to stand down as deputy prime minister last week. Yet Bolt is demonised on social media.

Last Tuesday he and Melbourne Ports Labor MP Michael Danby on the Bolt Report defended climate change activist Clive Hamilton for his new book, Silent Invasion, on Chinese influence in Australia. They argued the book deserves wide exposure. Like me, Bolt has been severely criticised by Hamilton. And Bolt has also bagged Hamilton, Charles Sturt University’s professor of ethics, as recently as May last year for his totalitarian tendencies on climate issues.

Yet Bolt was out of the blocks early when he interviewed Hamilton late last year and criticised publishers Allen & Unwin and Melbourne University Press for appearing to buckle to potential Chinese legal threats and refusing to publish the book. Hardie Grant has now decided to do so and a Senate committee investigating Chinese influence has opened the possibility of parliament publishing it, too.

So a conservative advocate for free speech is supporting Hamilton’s work, despite disagreements with Hamilton on other issues and disregard by Hamilton for his free speech. In other words, Bolt is making up his mind issue by issue on the facts.

Bolt often uses a form of words for this: “With the left it is not the issue but the side.” Perhaps on ­social media this is the result of a generation whose thinking has been affected by critical literacy theory. They do not reach conclusions from wide source reading. Rather, they analyse the politics of the person making an argument and agree or disagree based on whether that person is on their side.

Bolt and I would probably agree Hamilton also needs to read more widely the scientific dissenters on climate who give more weight to solar activity and longer-term atmospheric and ocean ­cycles. Yet that does not mean we should disagree with what he writes about China.

After all, it is not just Foreign Minister Julie Bishop concerned about China’s diplomatic aggression. Vietnam, Japan, The Philippines and Thailand are concerned over Chinese expansion in the South China Sea.

At home, ASIO has warned of increased espionage here, and ­defence contractors here and in the US have been hacked from China. China’s agents interfere in the lives of Australian Chinese university students, and Chinese business figures have been active in courting politicians from both sides with large donations.

The right-wing Catallaxy Files blog has criticised such concerns as conspiracy theories, proving the shouty culture of social media is not limited to the left. ­Indeed, media consumers often seem to want no more than confirmation bias from their news sources.

Two stories last week added to the list of prominent individuals and companies urging a rethink of our social media use.

Prince William, in a visit to a London high school, urged young people to curb their social media use, to be careful of what they post and to restrict use of devices to protect their mental health. Facebook has even admitted its platform is designed to attract as much user time from young people as possible and that this may be bad for them.

Unilever, the second largest ­advertiser in the world, spending $12 billion a year in marketing, last week warned Facebook and Google it was rethinking its strategies because of concern over its products being associated with the “swamp on social media”.

Yet it is not just bullying, fake news, disturbed sleep among children overusing screens and the misuse of various platforms by pornographers and criminals that should be of concern. I worry we are losing our ability to think for ourselves.

Facebook is a wonderful way for friends to stay in touch and for people to know what family members are up to, especially when living in different cities or countries. It is not a great way to understand the world. Twitter is the modern equivalent of the thumbs down at the colosseum when the crowd wants a gladiator to die.