For the most part, notsomuch. I’ve found FB to be an OK way to keep current with real friends and family, but the extended-extended “friends” of “friends” of friends who sometimes enter into political “discussions” on FB entries mostly turn out to have comments and insights of about the caliber of today’s high school sophomores. If that.
Indeed, anything more meaningful than dumps of out-of-context, misapplied (and often not at all understood by the dumper) factoids gleaned from the first hit on a google search is a rarity in FB political “discourse”. Most folks don’t even take time to actually read (assuming they can read and comprehend) initial posts or the material linked, let alone engage their brain before they begin to type.
I can understand how some view “social media” as a way to communicate political ideas with immediacy, but, folks, it’s primarily a means of communicating surface factoids to people with short attention spans and little interest in doing their own homework so they can understand what’s going on.
Stick with real friends and family and what’s going on in your lives.
There’s a version of Internet-based discourse for people who want to have meaningful discussions.
It’s called blogging.
Unfortunately, it also takes far more time and effort than most twits (thanks for the word) want to put in.
It’s just so much eeeeeezier when opinion=fact=done.
“Twits” are what one calls users of Twitter. FB users? Not so clear cut. FB was useful in coordinating some recent wedding things, and continues to be useful keeping up with family goings-on. Not more useful than email, phone or face-to-face for me, but apparently convenient enough for others in our family that it’s become a default. *sigh* Oh. Well. Olde Phartes just sometimes have to go with the flow, ya know?
Unfortunately, the level of discourse from the Facebook inclined debaters rarely improves when they are face to face in person.
Amen, Nicole. 🙂