The first thing that should be questioned about social networks is their name. Are they really networks? And above all, are they social?
A network is something that collects and even then the name of the so-called social networks could be correct, since they collect the opinions of those who participate in them and drag them through the ethereal world making them available to others. But are they really social? I mean: do they socialize the opinion of the person issuing it or do they just confront it with others? And, above all, can opinion be socialized when it exudes hatred or is at the service of interests, even programmed based on algorithms, as is unfortunately increasingly the case?
This week it was the mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, who has announced that she is leaving a social network tired of receiving insults, threats and disqualifications instead of divergent comments and opinions different from her own, which is what is expected from the exchange of ideas, but before, there have been many others, writers, politicians, journalists, who have left the networks tired of the same as that one. Some of them have fallen into temptation and abandoned them again when they saw that what awaited them was the same as adulteresses in the time of Jesus Christ: the public and ruthless stoning of those who believe they have the right to destroy those who do not. think like them, or not even that: because they don’t like their face or simply because they exist. From the anonymity of their homes and from the impunity granted to those who insult the pseudonym, many imagine gods while manifesting themselves as undesirable. It always happened (in the stands of the stadiums or from the metal mockery of the car), but not as much as in these times when to insult others you only need a computer or a mobile and the desire to do so. And, of course, the necessary moral character so that you yourself do not dislike your behavior.
Often, they have looked at me as an extravagant, if not as an old man or a geek, as it is now called who does not do the same as most and also does not hide it, for not having social networks and, therefore, not exchanging opinions with my readers on both my literature and my newspaper articles. First, it is not entirely true, because with my readers I do speak and exchange opinions, but as equals and with open faces when I meet them, whether in a public event, either on the street or in a bar, and, second, neither am I proud nor do I flag a virtual misanthropy that I do not suffer, on the contrary: the virtual is an important part of my life, but I understand that someone does not understand it. Although the explanation is simple: my peace and my privacy are something that I value too much to put within the reach of anyone and less of those who enjoy destroying others, in the same way that I do not talk to anyone on the street, only with whom I know. address me politely. Given what we are seeing, I believe that the Pope was hasty by ruling that hell does not exist (hell is the others, Sartre said, and I would add that in anonymity more), and, as Fernando Pessoa wrote, for me, to write It’s my way of being alone