(Word beforehand: normally I let these kinds of annoyances blow over. Lyrically and columntechnical I find it difficult and difficult to shape it. So it's kind of a writing experiment. Curious what you think of it.)

I got a little annoyed this week. The Facebook page OMG. published that Sylvana Simons wants to spell the words “sweetie”, “doll” and “girl”. The critical social media user knows: you really have to take such a news with a grain of salt. The source is Sylvana on Twitter, they say. And so you look up the tweet in question. And she turns out she doesn't say anything about doing anything under the spell. She reacts to something with a random two. Zero news value and rather far-fetched to make it an item. But yes, Sylvana. Warranty for the well-known red rag. And so comments and so clicks and so money. Bastards! To my disappointment, two Facebook friends are responding to it. One of them wishes to go back to her own country (au!), the other denouncing the fact that Sylvana thinks she should think for her.

Now I find these two comments from my Facebook friends rather embarrassing, but fortunately in my timeline quite exceptional. I was right about the Netflix documentary The Social Network in my head and started a thought game. What if your timeline is ready with this kind of message and your friends all respond to it? Then it threatens to become a crazy kind of truth and this particular post is a lot less noticeable. It normalizes. It could have been where. It stretches the decency standard.
Fragmented media landscape

Somewhere it is refreshing that I follow two people who respond to this. Just as I follow someone who denotes the American elections, averse to all the traditional media. In fact, he considers this to be completely unreliable and predicted a monstrous victory for Trump. Like I follow someone who believes that the elite drink baby blood and that the coronavirus was invented by the pharmaceutical industry. Like I follow several people who “do research on their own.” And, of course, the followers of traditional media. For example, I have various alternate opinions and see the fragmented media landscape. Then I will philosophize how we will deal with this in the future. Here in Mexico, this is perfectly normal, here the media is unreliable.
Multi-interpretable facts

I only realize more and more: facts are almost always multi-interpretable. Strictable offences are only punishable if the judge has so determined, and even that is now being questioned. Complicated times. All the stories I wrote for BN DeStem could have been completely different if I had chosen to. And that is an absolute micro-level. If a Willem II supporter writes a factual and historical piece about NAC, it will be completely different than that when NAC-fan Sjoerd Mossou does this. This makes that 'self-research' confusing, because everyone by definition has an opinion and therefore a direction.

But if your timeline almost unequivocally shares the same opinion, then there must be some true? In addition, everyone supports you, witness the many likes. Let me help you out of your dream: many likes are not equal to truth. See the image of this blog. 188 likes for a comment that really goes side nor shore.
Homogeneous

I was still philosophising about that timeline. How does such a social circle actually arise? Who allows you on social media and who doesn't? And that's how it works offline? I've known someone who's been around himself with like-minded people all his life. Artists, or those who practice a creative profession. I remember when I went out and had beer with my NAC friends. He went along, but refused to connect to them. They were just a bunch of hooligans, he said. No artists. But the dangerous and difficult thing about artists is that by definition they want to color outside the lines. That'll take you to dark corners. To a parallel reality. To an alternate reality. And this also applies to purely politicians. Or just football supporters. Homogeneous groups bring you a lot of the same.
Balance

It's all about balance. To ask the question “is it?”, to remain open to counterarguments. My Facebook consists of artists, officials, doctors, cooks, designers, unemployed, journalists, fathers, mothers, sellers, musicians, Dutch, Argentines, Mexicans, Chinese, Black Piet-lovers, Black Piet-haters, racists, conspiracy fanatics, world improvers, virtues, haters, geniuses and simple souls. That gives me a balanced picture, without a radical direction. And doubt. Always doubt about any subject. Whether it's the American elections, virus truth, ritual baby blood, racism, power structures or anything you don't have a grip on as an individual. A pronounced opinion is nice, as long as you have a little doubt about your chosen angle. Stay open to the other side of the coin. Only doubt will bring you further. Doubt creates development. That's what makes it so complicated.

But in the case of Sylvana Simons, it is very simple. Find the source. That's herself. But even that seems too complicated for some social media users. They feed on scoring urge from bastard blogs. And that's damn annoying.

Bastard Facebook Posts