Social media. Ah, social media.

I made my first post about my uneasy relationship with social media five years ago, explaining why I blog anonymously. Two years ago, I posted again, bemoaning the lack of civility on-line, even among acquaintances.

I love Facebook, for the connections to old friends and my autism recovery groups. I also recognize the wisdom of keeping my mouth shut on controversial topics: Social media rarely allow for productive and thought-provoking exchange; users prefer to post dumbed-down memes and wait for comments that support their opinion.

What I need to get past, these days, is feeling personally attacked by others’ posts. Take, for example, this sketch that appeared recently on my Facebook wall:

The implication? That a mother whose child eats only organic, homemade food doesn’t “live[] in the real world.” But I live in the real world. And my child eats only organic, homemade food, except for a few commercial, raw snacks and occasional meals at pre-approved restaurants.

Or how about this post?:

Indeed! It’s me! I eat seedless (organic!) grapes and complain that GMOs are unnatural! I know the difference between selective breeding and genetic modification. Selective breeding is vertical genetic transmutation within a given species. Genetic modification is transmutation of genes horizontally, across species. Totally different.

I don’t respond. Why waste thoughtfulness?

I’m sure you can imagine how I felt when a friend posted a link to an article purportedly tying a measles outbreak to “anti-vaxx” parents and asked, “Who are these medieval people???”

Me again! Not only as the parent of an immune-compromised child, but also as an attorney, I have concerns about the current vaccination regime. We’ve exempted these potent pharmaceuticals from the usual liability schema, and the safety assessment protocol lends itself to manipulation as vaccine after vaccine after vaccine is pushed onto the recommended schedule. At the same time, legislatures are seeking to move these injections from “recommended” to mandatory, i.e., to restrict even exemptions that are based on valid health concerns. The whole pharma-driven plan invites rising vaccine injury rates, and I hope to witness more Constitutionally based challenges.

 

The list of Facebook zingers is long. I resist the urge to respond, “I’m glad you asked. I am that person.” I resist because I will end up only frustrated, and because fighting those virtual battles can sap energy from the real task at hand, Martin’s recovery.

But as usual, I am conflicted. Many of these types of Facebook “status updates” come from acquaintances who, I think, respect me and/or my professional competence. They come from law school classmates and from co-workers, from the siblings of childhood friends and from distant relatives. If I were to argue almost any valid opinion face-to-face, they would probably take note. I might even sway them.

If I am a person who may have influence over pro-vaccine, organic-bashing lovers of genetic modification, maybe I have a responsibility to speak. Or maybe—if I speak against pro-vaccine, organic-bashing lovers of genetic modification, I will lose whatever influence I have to command.

A conundrum.

A conundrum not limited to Facebook. An older relative, for no apparent reason other than knocking a chip from my shoulder, told me he was getting a Zostavax shot against shingles. I suggested that he might want to weigh the side effects, and that Zostavax is counter-indicated for people who’ve been treated for cancer (as he has). He blew off my concerns (which was likely his intent from the moment he brought up vaccination out of the blue). He said: “I believe in science.”

Science? What did you read before reaching this decision? I can show you the studies I’ve reviewed. I understand your concerns about shingles. On the other hand . . . wait. You haven’t done any research whatsoever? You saw a commercial that said a shot would protect you, so you’re going for it, no more information necessary? Good call.

Waste of breath.

When I started this blog years ago, Martin’s biomed doctor said, approvingly: “We have parents telling everyone they know that recovery is possible, and no one listens. You’re an Ivy-League-educated lawyer who can write, and a stickler for facts. Maybe they’ll listen to you.”

Maybe they won’t.

In my blog, I speak freely, When it comes to social medial, I’m better off trying to find points of agreement. Let’s go back to “Deborah,” who “loses her s**t daily & knows every honest mother does too”:

At least I can admit that I’m an “honest mother.”