Maybe because a lot of people have been sitting at home and bored during the 'Christmas abyss' (what day is it again? Bailey's and selection box for breakfast? What is the existential meaning of a radiator?), or because of dodgy astrological energies, or, I dunno, because genocidal maniacs are trying to exterminate us all and it's starting to get to people, but, whatever the reason, it seems there's been an explosion of cyber-sniping over the last few weeks, with a lot more frayed tempers and argumentative spats than usual.

I have seen a preponderance of posts on Facebook over the last few days to the general effect of, "my Facebook page is my personal space to share my views. If you don't like them, please just scroll past or unfollow me, don't lash out on my posts."

I entirely sympathise with this perspective, and wrote a post to support this view. Ordinarily, when I get stupid comments on my own posts, I just delete them (which conclusively satisfies the "do critics have the inalienable right to uncensored free expression on others' pages" argument; obviously not, since the page owner has access to a delete button), but, as this issue seems to be affecting a lot of other people at the moment too, I thought I'd address it more comprehensively, as I do think it's important.

I see how badly it affects people when others intrude into their spaces in a way they don't want - that is what's behind all the "Facebook is so toxic, I have to take a lengthy break" posts that you see, and when Facebook can be a primary and sometimes even life-saving social connector, feeling so battered by it that people - including perhaps very lonely and isolated people, who have fallen out with all their family and friends over "the pandemic" and rely on Facebook for their social sanity - have to take lengthy or permanent breaks from it, then this is not good. I want others to feel empowered to be assertive in their own spaces and have them how they want them to be, because - regardless of what intemperate critics say - that IS your right. So, here we go...

The post linked above that I wrote got a lot of support, with most people sharing my views (some pretty emphatically, since as I said, this issue badly affects a lot of people), but there were a few who said (paraphrasing):

"If you don't expect to be challenged, you shouldn't share your views. Social media isn't a personal space, it's a public forum. If you can't take criticism, you shouldn't speak out."

Superficially, this seems like a reasonable perspective and it was the perspective I had when I initially started sharing my views publicly (and it was the reluctance to be on the receiving end of scathing personal attacks which meant it took me years until I started being public about my beliefs, which is the same for most people).

But here is the thing: social media and blogs may be publicly accessible, but that doesn't make them public places - and even public places have rules about behaviour. A park is public place, but there are all sorts of rules about what you can and cannot do there. Online websites, news resources, and personal social media pages are publicly accessible, but they're not public free-for-alls, and they all have moderation functions on comments (some don't have comments' sections at all, but that option is not there on Facebook), and this is because, the fact that you choose to put your views out there does not mean you are obliged to give a platform to the views of everyone who would like to attack you. They can create their own platforms to say whatever they like, but your platforms are for you and who you choose to have on them. Personal pages and websites are not chat forums where everyone has equal rights to free expression (and again, even chat forums have etiquette rules and will ban people who consistently break them).

It's a disingenuous argument to say you must accept attacks and argumentative criticism, otherwise there's "no point" in sharing your views. Answer me this: do you typically read books you like and appreciate, or books you don't? Do you listen to music you enjoy or music you can't stand? Do you watch films that resonate with you or ones that don't?

The point of any kind of creative expression is to appeal to those who appreciate it. It's to forge connection based on shared belief and resonance. That's the point, and it's not a superficial point. Finding writing / music / art we enjoy and that speaks to us is massively meaningful and sustaining, at this time in history more than ever. Obviously, all artists have their critics, but as I say, said artists are not obligated to provide a free and uncensored platform for their critics to attack them, or to publish said attacks on their own sites. It would be weird if they did, and it's bizarrely arrogant of critics to expect it.

These kinds of people can't seem to grasp the distinction between expressing yourself on YOUR OWN platforms - which other people have a free choice to read or not - and imposing your views onto someone else's platform, which they are forced to read whether they want to or not. It's not a subtle distinction. If someone finds my views objectionable (and I am aware that very many people do), they are welcome to not visit my website, to unfollow me on social media or even to criticise me on their own pages. I would never try to interfere with their right to do this, because I don't have to go there and read it (although I may choose to). But they are not allowing me that same kind of free choice when they lash out directly on my platforms and at me. It's coercively imposing their views on me, and I don't enjoy that - which is why I don't do it to others, either. I quietly read a lot of different perspectives every day, but don't start personally criticising and arguing with their authors in their spaces, because I have learned through extensive experience it's not an appropriate or productive thing to do.

Everyone knows what a time-suck black-hole waste of time it is to argue on social media, and the reason it is, is that it is never a genuine and open-minded exchange of views, it is always two people trying to impose their views on each other, and the longer the argument goes on, the nastier it typically gets, and the more defensive and entrenched in their own position each party becomes. I have witnessed many, many arguments on social media, and this is ALWAYS how it goes. No exceptions. This is because the very act of provoking an argument with someone in their space when you haven't been invited to do so, is hostile and aggressive, and they receive it in that way, so they are immediately riled up and on the defensive.

A critic might say, "but I have been invited. I am their Facebook friend", but this is a total misnomer. If I invite you into my house, it doesn't mean you therefore have carte blanche to behave however you like, and if you start being rude and unpleasant, you will be invited to leave. My house, my rules. If you don't like them, don't come to my house.

Websites have moderation functions and social media has unfollow and block options for precisely this reason: house rules. Nobody would set up a social media page if they had no control over what others posted in their space, so this makes it unambiguously clear that we are the arbiters of what behaviour, views, and energies we allow on our pages - our digital "houses" - and our critics are not. If you will forgive me for getting all "Ickey" for a moment, it is an energetic and vibrational thing as well. When you have harsh, critical, derogatory posts on your page, attacking you and criticising your views, that creates an entirely different energetic field, than posts that are thoughtful, appropriate, and polite, and I don't want to give a platform to personal attacks, which dramatically change the tone and 'vibration' of my page.

The desire to lash out and undermine someone else in their space only comes from a place of ego and an irresistible compulsion to impose your views on them, it absolutely never comes from a real desire to "help them" or from a genuine interest in open-minded debate, and if you're really honest with yourself, you'll eventually admit that. I did, which is why I stopped criticising and arguing with people in their spaces some while ago, and my life dramatically improved when I did. When I fully accepted other people's rights to use their spaces to say whatever they want without my endorsement or approval, and to reserve my direct interactions with others for instances where I can be appropriate and appreciative, rather than condemnatory and critical. It's amazing how much your life improves when you make that choice.

That does not mean I am a "snowflake" living in an "echo chamber", as I read a wide range of diverse views every day, from the mainstream and alternative media, and from social media, including multiple points I strenuously disagree with. Indeed, I have a number of "nemeses" in cyberspace that I actively seek out in order to read their views, because these can often be catalysts for writing articles of my own. I just don't use other people's views as an invitation to start being belligerent and argumentative with them in their spaces, because I simply don't feel the need to directly impose my views on everyone I disagree with. The difference between my writing a counter-argument to one of my "nemeses" on my own platform, rather than on theirs, is that when it is on mine, they can CHOOSE whether to read it. I'm not forcing it down their throat by putting it in their space, I don't "tag" them in it or otherwise bring it to their attention, and - unless they're a public figure - I don't name them - and these distinctions are crucial. Having strong views and expressing them is perfectly acceptable and commendable. But forcing your views on others is not appropriate and nothing good ever comes of it.

If we're friends sitting in a pub and we get into a debate, that's a different thing, because I have chosen to spend time with you and entertain your views, and I can also exercise free choice as to whether I continue the conversation if it becomes unpleasant, as can you. I haven't made that choice if you insinuate yourself onto my page to start launching attacks. It's basically the equivalent of you overhearing a conversation I am having with a friend in a pub - a public place - and pulling up a chair to insinuate yourself into the conversation uninvited in order to launch blistering attacks, because "it's a public place and I have every right. If you don't want belligerent strangers involved in your conversations, you should stay at home". Some people might think that's an reasonable way to behave (I've seen it happen, especially in Wetherspoon's, where it's 99p a pint...), but most of us don't and would find it wildly inappropriate: intrusive, invasive, and vaguely menacing. It's just a matter of basic manners and etiquette, which (should) exist online too.

Leading on from this, I have been informed by said belligerent strangers that I "have to" accept inflammatory, argumentative comments because my Facebook posts are public and I have a large following. Well, first of all, I got stupid comments when my posts were set to friends only and I only had 253 friends (a number which began rapidly diminishing when I first started honestly sharing my views), because a lot of people don't know how to behave, and that is regardless of whether you have 30 followers or 30,000. That you're "Facebook friends" with someone, or even real-life friends, doesn't automatically mean they know how to behave themselves online.

Secondly, my posts are public because I was asked to set them to public by people who wanted to share them. It wasn't meant as an invitation to every bored keyboard warrior to lash out - but there is no way of turning comments off, or putting them on 'moderate first' (as there is on other sites), so I therefore can't stop randoms commenting in an unwelcome way on them - but I can decide how I want to respond, e.g. deleting first offenders and blocking repeat ones. If I was obliged to host and entertain all my critics, then the delete and block functions wouldn't exist - but they do, and I and most other people would not have set up a Facebook page did they not.

Some people are up for heated debates and arguments online (usually relative 'newbies' or those with low visibility, who haven't learned yet how futile this is) and some people aren't. It is entirely up to every individual to decide whether they are or are not, and just because people choose to share their views on their Facebook page (where, as I have said, it is impossible to turn comments off, or to set them to 'moderate first'), this doesn't mean others have the right to try and force them into arguing. You might be up for a fight, but that doesn't mean others are. They have the right to say 'no' and to remove you from their space. To deny they have this right is frankly weird, and more than a little spoiled and entitled. You're basically saying other people HAVE TO entertain your views, they HAVE TO find them worthy of their time and consideration, whether they want to or not, and that is just overbearing and arrogant. If you are reading my views right now, that's because you've chosen to by coming to my page. No element of force or coercion was involved.

While a few people enjoy - and have the time for - long, heated debates with strangers online, most of us don't - we post our views on our platforms to connect with the people who appreciate and resonate with them, in order to build connections and networks. And we leave other people to do the same on their platforms. Therefore, we all have free speech, we can all find like-minded people to connect with, and we're not further enriching the coffers of Mark Zuckerberg by providing endless free content for him in terms of lengthy social media spats...

(And on the subject of free speech, I think a lot of people are confused as to what it is. Free speech means the right to express yourself without being censored or penalised by the state, e.g. without having your speech criminalised. It does NOT refer to being able to be as rude and irritating as you like on other people's social media platforms. If you set up a blog to express your views and the government shuts it down, then that would be a curtailment of your free speech. If I delete your annoying comment from my Facebook page, it's not quite the same thing.)

I think what it really comes down to is this: the ultimate reason anyone chooses to express themselves or communicate outwardly in any way, is that they are looking for connection. We connect with people based on shared interests, shared beliefs, compatible personalities (and one form of compatibility is agreeing how it is and isn't appropriate to interact online), and so on. If you are drawn to attack someone, you're not trying to connect with them - connection being based on mutual understanding and appreciation and respect - you're trying to undermine them and shut them down. It's all about you and your ego and your need to be right, nothing to do with the other person and what they might need or prefer. So, this is not the basis for any sort of constructive relationship, and has never (ever) developed into a meaningful friendship. I have met lots of real-world friends via social media (including one I married) - but none of these relationships began or were sustained by our attacking or criticising each other. That's not to say we all agree on everything all the time, as we certainly do not, but it's about recognising how one instigates and nurtures meaningful relationships, especially in the initial stages.

And if you're not interested in having a relationship with someone (and presumably you're not, if your first instinct is to attack them), then ask yourself this, and it's a really important question to answer honestly - why is it so important to you to force them to hear your views?