LikeTheDew.com

Last week, for the first time, I defriended somebody on Facebook.

This individual, who will go nameless, posts scripture online on a daily, often hourly, basis, but tossed the seventh chapter of Matthew out the window within a few hours of Ted Kennedy’s death and launched into the sort of bitter, vile spew which has poisoned public discourse in this country.

It’s vulgar to defame someone who’s just died, whether it’s Jesse Helms, Ted Kennedy or even Saddam Hussein, but that’s not entirely the reason I defriended this person.

Others have committed this offense on Facebook and I haven’t gone and found that checkbox which removes them from my sight. Recently, when someone made a tasteless joke about Michael Jackson, I called him out about it in terms I deemed just as vulgar as he’d been.

I didn’t know the author of the Ted Kennedy invective well enough to write a defriending note, but the anonymity of the act nevertheless left me uneasy. Yet, what would I have said? It wasn’t the offensiveness of a single act that warranted excommunication, but the combination of spite, sanctimoniousness and verbosity taking up so much room on my computer screen. I was, to be frank, just tired of this person, who never posted any good links or said anything thoughtful.

I felt better about directly challenging the other “friend,” but I doubt my reproof was viewed as good form. On Facebook, where 60-year-olds send each other virtual lollipops, teddy bears and hugs, it’s not cool to be parental.

I wrestle with which of my reactions was the correct one, and indeed with a host of questions about what constitutes proper etiquette in an age of instant, yet largely impersonal, response. I care deeply about manners, even if mine are sometimes lacking. As Sam Adams wrote and John Oxendine recently posted for me and his other Facebook “friends” to be edified by, “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

These questions have come up before. There’s even a Facebook etiquette group – probably more than one, if I’d looked hard enough. But these are hard questions, not given to any casual how-to. Generally, moral questions are hard because we don’t like the answer, not because we don’t know the answer. In questions of manners, we often really don’t know the answer.

There is first the question of proffering or accepting an invitation to be a “friend.” We all understand this as a term of convenience. People use social networking sites to do business and politics (in my case the two are closely intertwined) and a host of things that don’t really imply the deepest friendship. We friend people we haven’t seen since high school, and some people friend those they’d like to meet, but haven’t. Social networks are the new town square, and we speak of “friends” in the same way local boosters used to speak of some little burg being a friendly town. It’s a generality, not intended to be genuine.

If you’re in certain kinds of work that demand a lot of networking, you can’t get around Facebook anymore, though the only really good paying gig I’ve gotten from one of these sites, I got from a connection on LinkedIn. I don’t Twitter yet, although I expect before long I will have to. But how much networking is proper?

I generally accept anyone’s offer of friendship, so long as we have some legitimate connection or enough “friends” in common. I’ve got over 400 “friends,” and other people I know, those who really network for a living, have over 4,000. Others, like my daughter, view such an open policy as too promiscuous.

“I have a loose definition of ‘friend,’” she says, “but I still have one.”

My “friends,” as you might imagine, span the political spectrum, and occasionally, responding to some post of mine, they get into it with each other. Do I have an obligation to referee?

Even fairly gentle advice to those I agree with about how to improve their presentation is not, I sense, much appreciated. In the absence of any really sensible standards for how to act, only unrelenting, unthinking positive reinforcement seems to be acceptable.

There are etiquette questions which pertain to political and professional connections, and those that are purely social. If you were someone’s “friend” because they were married or going steady with a real friend, should you defriend them after they split? And should I have written a note to the person I defriended, even if I’d only met this “friend” in person once?

Some people post with astonishing frequency and vapidity, play those games and take narcissistic quizzes that take up a lot of screen room. There are filters you can use to weed these “friends” out without completely disassociating yourself from them. But when someone writes that they’re experiencing chest and neck pains (this happened yesterday), are you obliged to tell them they should get offline and go see a doctor?

Here we cross that fuzzy line between etiquette and ethics. It seems pretty obvious that some people are shilling for corporate and political interests. Ethically, it’s questionable to take money for your opinions without revealing this to your “friends.” But is it proper etiquette to challenge them, if you have no proof they’re on the take?

There are such things as stalkers, who cruise other people’s profiles to hit on their “friends,” and employers who spy on their employees or potential hires. There’s a considerable literature about this already on the web.

One “friend,” who actually is a friend, recently posted a list of ethics rules – not, appropriately enough, in sequential order – dealing with problems like these. This is a salutary effort, but as regards right and wrong, the old guideposts are as reliable online as off.

It’s the gray area between right and wrong, the zone in which most of our daily contacts are made and where manners are indispensable, that is really tricky. What we really need is a Facebook Emily Post.

1. Cliff Green says:

   September 6, 2009 at 12:47 am

   To everyone who reads The Dew, forgive me: It is past midnight and all our friends have had enough to eat and drink and have gone home.
   The wine bottle is empty.
   Tom, we have been friends for almost 40 years. Through thick and thin, drunk and sober, we have exchanged some insane ideas over the years, and I have enjoyed every minute of it.
   However, I have read this post three times, and I haven’t a clue as to what the f**k you’re talking about.
   Forgive me. I’ll sober up tomorrow. When I do, would you please try to clue me in as to what this is all about?

   Reply
2. Tom Baxter says:

   September 6, 2009 at 1:10 am

   Cliff:
   It’s your Luddite inclinations that cloud your comprehension.
   Not that that’s a bad thing. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m watching the chase scene from “The Matrix Reloaded.”

   Reply
3. Robert M. Williams, Jr. says:

   September 6, 2009 at 1:11 am

   Tom,
   We are “friends” but not well acquainted. I’m an admirer, too, of your work. I particularly admire this piece because, unlike your apparently closer friend, Cliff, I understand perfectly what you are talking about. And it is, indeed, a problem.

   What has “set you off” is one more example of the coarsening of society, the disconnect too many people have between venomous words they spout and the reality they affect. What is genuinely frightening is the near mass hysteria being created in some minds as a result of so many people spouting so many tasteless tirades. This has been building for me for some time, but this week’s latest “controversy” because a sitting President of the United States wants to speak our nation’s school children — similarly to what has been done often in the past … well, that’s about taken the cake. The whole world hasn’t gone nuts but a major portion has for certain.

   Keep up the good work.

   Reply
4. C Smith says:

   September 6, 2009 at 1:21 am

   Mr. Baxter I recently joined the Facebook group and tryed to participate until some of my family started to make open comments that I knew were BS. Instead of venting on the open stage I just deleted my name and account. I don’t stay pissed offed all the time now. It was easy for me to drop but I understand some people thrive on the drama others like to contrive. You may have to attend de-tox but it will stop mental anguish.

   Reply
5. Billy Mallard says:

   September 6, 2009 at 6:25 am

   Tom – A fine piece, raising questions many of us deal with on Facebook and, I presume, on other similar sites.

   Apologies for going off-message here, but I am grateful to Facebook for introducing me to LikeTheDew. I’ve particularly enjoyed your stories – they cover a far greater breadth and depth of interests than I would have guessed. When I was at the AJC ‘85-’88 I was only aware of your formidable political reporting and writing.

   It’s just great to stumble upon your posts and those of the other ex-AJCers here. Keep up the good work!

   Reply
6. Doug Cumming says:

   September 6, 2009 at 6:47 am

   You’re onto something, Tom.
   Ethics and etiquette do overlap, don’t they? I think of some book titles. Morals and manners, as we have it in the title of Flannery O’Connor’s essays. Isn’t the deepest message of our mothers, here in the South, “Mind your manners”? Or as Roy Blount Jr. titles his kind-of memoir: Be Sweet: A Conditional Love Story.
   The problem is bigger than just Facebook, or social networking. We live in an age of fragmented convictions and passions, or what sociologists call religious pluralism. How can you take your “religion” or political convictions seriously, and also tolerate other’s? It requires a touch of modesty, or Matthew 7. But don’t forget this: Behave! What would your mother say? This may be our last civilized bulwark.

   Reply
7. SpaceyG on Twitter says:

   September 6, 2009 at 8:14 am

   I de-friend someone on Facebook at least once a week. And de-follow loons and idiots and literalists on Twitter constantly. I call it e-gardening. When you’ve been at it for a while, you won’t think twice about dumping people you don’t like. In a heartbeat.

   I imagine plenty of folk do likewise with me too, rather than haggle in cyberspace with my ilk. But they’re typically amateurs. Not built to last or handle such unregulated communications freedoms all by themselves.

   As the great Atlanta coder/blogger/all-around deviant Rusty Tanton once said, “I’m running a blog not a democracy.”

   We might need an Emily Post in cyberspace, but the folk who last here aren’t real fond of rules. Anyone’s welcome to enter in and start with their rule making, their list of guidelines for nice Facebook etiquette, but are you sure you want to hang out with those kind of people when there are veritable treasure troves of far more interesting others to choose from out here in the great unregulated wilds?

   Reply
8. Mark Johnson says:

   September 6, 2009 at 8:28 am

   “Please send us down an unbeliever who will deliver is us from the madness of the morally certain.” –John Gorka.

   Reply
9. Terri Evans says:

   September 6, 2009 at 9:39 am

   This story needed to be written. Thanks, Tom. I’m especially with you on the narcissistic quizzes and the games, which may be the most accurate indicator of unemployment (or underemployment) that we have. The size and cartoonish nature of the game graphics are visually offensive (Farmville, in particular, which can suck up an entire screen faster than any field could be plowed). Still, I’m fond of the “real” lives of these people and am hoping they will soon tire of these virtual alter egos. Two things I especially appreciate about facebook: 1) birthday reminders and the ease of sending a greeting 2) seeing the children and grandchildren of friends and family. I have never once accepted (or sent) a friend request to someone I do not know, and never plan to do so, although I confess to recently “mining” the friends of a college friend who managed to stay connected (when I did not) to many old pals from school, whom I LEGITIMATELY wanted to find.

   Reply
10. Lee Leslie says:

    September 6, 2009 at 9:52 am

    Tom – Loved the topic and just sent you a friend request. Somewhat like your daughter, I have a loose criteria for de-friending, but I have one. Never for politics – I live in a red state, hail from another and desire to be there when they experience their epiphany.
    I use the hide and the ignore button for those whose lives are now so tedious that I prefer to remember them when I thought they were more interesting (I’m on my way to store to pick up eggs, milk and Malox; I just took the test of what Beatle I’m most like; please join the group “I can find 100,000 people as stupid as me,” etc.).
    Poor taste hasn’t made my list. In my world, poor taste requires a very big tent.
    So far, the only time I have defriended was to silence a voice who continuously and blatantly promotes different businesses that pay her to blatantly promote businesses to her friends. Your own business, I’m okay with that. More than one business, but less than 50% of the time, acceptable, at least for a while. Over 50% of your posts are promotion, bye – you make others lives seem so much more interesting.

    Reply
11. Myra says:

    September 6, 2009 at 10:08 am

    Thanks, Tom, for a timely post. I wrote a column in the same vein for the Athens Banner-Herald recently. http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/090209/opi_488610151.shtml. From the comments, looks like at least one person believes that lies can be true and slander is just what you call it when you don’t like what I say about you, i.e. something liberals cry.

    What really makes me sad is that we’re both preaching to the choir. I am not optimistic about a return to civility. Even when John Oxendine is talking about it.

    Reply
12. Gil says:

    September 6, 2009 at 11:01 am

    Tom, thanks for writing this. Interesting, thought-provoking. I am inspired and am going to de-friend a couple of dozen folks! (But not you, of course.)

    Reply
13. Bill Hendrick says:

    September 6, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    I am terribly weary of reading the Biblical hogwash posted by some people I actually know. It astonishes me that they use the Facebook forum to sell this absolute nonsense. It astonishes me even more than they apparently believe it.
    I’ve only de-friended a couple of people, but then, they weren’t friends in the first place.
    Oh, and very nice piece.
    Bill

    Reply
14. Ginger says:

    September 6, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    Tom, thanks for an interesting piece that needed to be written! You bring up so many points I have considered since social networking has become such an integral part of life. What I wonder is how these cyber over-networkers can get anything done in real life! Yes, networking is important in every business. (I also work for myself.) But some of these folks appear to live ONLY on fb and twitter and then some. It’s as if some of these folks cannot possibly have time to actually work or do anything in the real world. I, like your daughter, have high level discretion when it comes to new fb friends. I won’t accept a friend request from someone I don’t know at all. Too many weirdos out there.
    Keep up the great words! The Dew is the best!

    Reply
15. Doug says:

    September 6, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    Hi Friend, from Iraq !

    Reply
16. Angela says:

    September 6, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    I agree with most of what you said. However, I will point out that dying does not bring on instant sainthood. Everything you did good or bad still reamins part of your record on this earth. Just because some public person is important to one group of society does not make him or her important to all of us, as in the case of the two persons you mentioned. They are dead let them rest in peace and let the rest of us have peace by not having to continue to hear about them on a daily basis. Thanks for your article I love reading THE DEW

    Reply
17. Cliff Green says:

    September 6, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    Tom, I finally figured it out. You have to know something about that Facebook thing to understand what you were writing about. Sorry!
    But I am left with a question: If it causes you that much consternation, why screw with it at all?

    Reply
18. Mary says:

    September 7, 2009 at 9:08 am

    Thanks for writing this, Tom; it needed to be written. To answer your question, Cliff, Tom screws around with it because it’s a necessary evil these days — think of it of having to check the wires and competition regularly. When I was at the AJC, I made it a point to watch at least one opening episode of every new TV program to come down the pike. That way I had some idea of who was who and what the story line was. Reporters, of course, were far to important to watch something as mundane as television shows; that’s what researchers were for! I do wish there were some way to “befriend” someone without becoming privy to everything they post. I have “hidden” a couple of “friends.” Twittering, though, is best left to our avian friends.

    Reply
19. SpaceyG on Twitter says:

    September 7, 2009 at 9:19 am

    It wasn’t Craig’s List that did in newspapers. It was foggy, resistive, un-curious attitudes just like the ones expressed here. Thank goodness those out being innovative don’t pay much attention to crotchety whiners and losers.

    Reply
20. Cliff Green says:

    September 7, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    Mary, perhaps you’re right. I’m retired. My only problem is a good tee time at a cheap public golf course. However, I am proud to point out that I read all the way through the celebrity birthdays in Peach Buzz the other day and did not recognize a single name. Thank you, Jesus.

    Reply
21. Cristi says:

    September 10, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    Good Manners aside, I wasn’t going to miss a chance to defame Michael Jackson!

    Reply