What I will address pertains mostly to us in the United States but definitely is applicable to almost every developed country in the world.
As an analogy to what I'll be addressing, I will use plot of the movie Runaway Jury. If you haven't seen the movie, the following synopsis from Wikipedia will contain key plot points and spoilers. It has been further condensed by myself. Certain important characters pertaining to the analogy will be bolded:
"In New Orleans, a failed day trader at a stock brokerage firm shows up at the office and opens fire on his former colleagues, then kills himself. Two years later, with attorney Wendell Rohr, a victim's widow Celeste Wood takes Vicksburg Firearms to court on the grounds that the company's gross negligence led to her husband's death. During jury selection, jury consultant Rankin Fitch and his team communicate background information on each of the jurors to lead defense attorney Durwood Cable in the courtroom through electronic surveillance.
"Among jurors in the jury pool is a man named Nick Easter. During the trial, a woman named Marlee makes an offer to Fitch and Rohr: she will deliver the verdict to the first bidder.
"Rohr loses a key witness due to harassment, and after confronting Fitch, decides that he cannot win the case. He asks his firm's partners for $10 million. Fitch sends an operative to kidnap Marlee, but she fights him off and raises Fitch's price to $15 million. On principle, Rohr changes his mind and refuses to pay. Fitch agrees to pay Marlee to be certain of the verdict.
"Fitch's subordinate, Doyle, travels to Gardner, Indiana, where he discovers that Nick is really Jeff Kerr, a law school drop-out, and that Marlee's real name is Gabby Brandt, and the spouse of Jeff. Gabby's sister died in a school shooting. The town sued the gun manufacturer and Fitch helped the defense win the case. Doyle concludes that Nick and Marlee's offer is a set-up, and he calls Fitch, but it is too late.
"Nick receives confirmation of receipt of payment and he steers the jury in favor of Rohr. Vicksburg Firearms is found liable, with the jury awarding $110 million in general damages to Celeste Wood."
On a side note, it's not clear in the synopsis but Nick and Marlee had the intention of swaying the verdict in favor of Celeste Wood and Rohr regardless of who paid them. What makes the plot more interesting is the fact that it was Fitch who ended up paying them and Durwood Cable still loses the case AND $15 million in bribe money.
Before I explain the analogy I would like to explain what sparked my interest to write about all of this. Recently I came across an article from the Daily Wire called WNBA Championship Team Announces They Won't Visit White House -- But They Haven't Even Been Invited! The reason this sparked my interest is two-fold: first, it shows how eager everyone is to make a political statement, often of hate, and often in an effort to be labeled as courageous, defiantly brave, or unique. The second reason is that it shows how eager those on the opposing side of the political spectrum are to mock those making these differing actions and statements in order to get a reaction (often a Facebook "reaction"):
Speaking of the Facebook reactions, this is one form in public reactions that many seek. When released in February 2016, many people thought this was a long waited upgrade to the Facebook interface. People could finally express a few emotions to a post, video, or comment with the simple click of a mouse or tap on a screen. But were there negative effects to this new addition? Absolutely. In my personal experience, since the release of the Facebook reactions, social media has become more and more hateful and negative. The first 5 reactions (like, love, haha, wow, and sad) were the most used upon release from what I observed, but as time went on, the angry reaction showed up more and more. Initially, I would see it maybe twice a day as a popular reaction to posts as I scrolled through Facebook. Compare that to today where nearly every other post has people who, for one reason or another, find a reason to be angry about it's contents.
The Facebook reactions couldn't have come at a worse time. 2016 was the year of the US election and tensions were high. Attacks on the left, the right, and everyone in between were being spat out. What better way to know people are angry at what Trump said than to simply see how many "angry" reactions you got. What better way to mock Hillary than to post something she said or did and see how many "haha" reactions you got. This created the state of us.
The state of us is that we want to laugh, or we want to be angry at someone or something. The state of us doesn't feel the need for love or compassion because those don't get enough "shares" on Facebook. The state of us doesn't feel the need to ignore political or philosophical differences because "sticking it to the man" gets more respect and attention. Everyone loves a good "burn" story such as an article named something along the lines of "Watch Donald Trump get completely eviscerated in debate on CNN" or "Watch Hillary Clinton get burned in debate against Donald Trump". Though these are often forms of entertainment among different political opponents, it has created a state of "one-upping" and, what I like to call "reaction competition".
Now to explain the analogy: First, Facebook (and the executives) we will compare to Nick and Marlee, the ones who were leveraging the case to the highest bidder; Right ideologies we will compare to Vicksburg Firearms and Left ideologies we will compare to Celeste Wood; Wendell Rohr, the attorney of Celeste Wood, is comparable to the liberals or the Left; Durwood Cable is comparable to conservatives or the Right; and lastly, Rankin Fitch is the US government and laws (this will all make sense in a minute).
First thing to note is this analogy isn't trying to point out who is right or who is wrong in comparing the Right vs the Left; rather it is comparing what role Facebook has in pitting us against each other for its own gain. Another thing to note is that Fitch is bidding on behalf of Durwood Cable, but doesn't represent Durwood Cable, but itself is also trying to get monetary gain from the situation.
With the newly understood comparisons, the plot becomes this:
Facebook is looking to get some sort of gain in this world, mostly monetary. Through the use of the US government and laws, it acquires information on all its users, both from the Left and from the Right. It uses this information and sells it to either the government or to advertisers in order to get gain. However, that isn't enough for Facebook. They decide to use the Facebook platform in order to pit the Right versus the Left. Though it is abundantly clear Facebook favors the Left, it isn't going to make it easy for the Left or else they can't use them in their plot to make money; if there is only one bidder on any item, the bidding price will remain low. Facebook creates "reactions" as part of their plan to create anger between the Left and the Right to start the bidding war. Facebook fully intends to let the Left win but only when the bids are high enough. The Left ideologies are shown first on your Facebook feed in order to try and get you to sympathize with the Left, and stories containing negative content regarding Right ideologies are mixed in in order to get some "angry" reactions. Because Facebook is the owner of the information, the Right feels threatened but refuses to back down. The Right offers all of its money in advertising on Facebook in order to promote positive posts of their ideologies, and uses the US government to cite laws such as the right to free speech and other legal rights. Facebook takes the money, yet continues to suppress the Right and their ideologies working around the law, or completely ignores it, and gives the Left cheap advertising of their content/ideologies. Though the Left thinks they've won, Facebook is the real winner, with the executives cashing in on every move on both sides.
The main difference here is that Celeste Wood and Wendell Rohr cashed in more than Nick and Marlee, but in this case, Facebook cashes in the larger haul.
You may be saying that it seems more obvious to compare Facebook to Rankin Fitch since they are the ones with the information on each of the jurors. However, if we made that comparison, that would allude to Facebook eventually being the losers and having the biggest loss among the parties involved. While this isn't the case, it should be. We can't let Facebook win, nor should we allow them to pit us against each other for its own gain. The way it is inciting this war is through what I previously mentioned, reaction competition. Rohr and Fitch were competing for the verdict by putting their money on the line. Facebook is forcing the Left and the Right to compete with advertising money for those who depend on viewership for income (political news sites, channels, blogs, etc.) as well as competing for reactions for those passively involved who get no monetary gain. Because most of us fall into the passively involved category, we don't get monetary gain if our ideologies get more shares or reactions, but we feel more of a sense of accomplishment and victory the more numbers we see next to how many people reacted to our posts, or the posts of those we follow. If we can incite more people to anger, and react with the "angry" reaction, or we can make a mockery the opposing political view by getting more "haha" reactions, we win. Or so we think.
The real way to win is to be human. The state of us 30 years ago, before social media, was kind. People said "hello" with a smile to strangers on the street. People rushed to help those in need, regardless of who they voted for. Meeting the President of the United States was an honor, whether or not you voted for him. The well being of humanity came first, not political ideologies.
In the Boy Scouts of America program, it was said that if anyone were to achieve the accomplishment of acquiring all merit badges that were offered in the program, they were given the chance to meet the President of the United States. While I was part of the program, Barack Obama was President, and I, nor my friend liked him. We both preferred the Republican party candidates and Presidents in the past. However, when my friend heard about the opportunity to meet Obama, he worked hard on trying to get each merit badge. He still respected the President even though he didn't agree with him politically.
Today, the state of us has changed. We would rather be right than be kind. We would rather win than be humble. We would rather laugh and mock than befriend and serve.
So how do we change the state of us to a more compassionate, caring, and serving state? The answer is simple but the implementation is difficult: swallow your pride.
It is our pride that drives us to divide us. The state of us is prideful. If we viewed people as more important than being right, we would become more compassionate. We need to see humanity in a new light. Whether you believe we are created by God or became through evolution, the fact of the matter is that humans are incredible. We have capabilities above that of any other creature on earth. We can't let us destroy ourselves. Whether that means you spend less time on Facebook, or unfollow pages that continually post just for the reactions, or leave Facebook all together, the best solution to the state of us is to remove anything that forces us to compete, and encourage and support anything that brings us together.
I have fallen victim to Facebook's plot but I intend to escape. I feel better when I'm nice to my friends rather than when I'm right. Shouldn't that be the state of us?
In summary, the state of us is declining. We are divided, and we are in a constant debate and finding fault for the division. The Right blames Obama and the Left. The Left blames Trump and the Right. Though I have my own opinions on the matter, one thing that I hope can be agreed on by both sides is that Facebook played a part in inciting anger, and causing division, as well as the declined of our state of being. Proving which political ideology or President is the cause of the problem doesn't provide the solution. The solution is to care less about who is right, and care more about how to be happy and how to be kind. If someone is drowning, is the first question you ask before jumping in to save them "who did you vote for?" Of course not! We would jump to the rescue if we are able. We need to stop seeing people as "Left", "Right" or anything in between, and start viewing people as humans. As yourself.
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. (Luke 6:31)
