I do occasionally, and:
1. I don't attack the other person or make ad hominem arguments
2. I only respond to someone who sounds seems to be making a good faith argument
3. I enjoy steel-manning an argument I don't agree with, because it helps me build a better argument
I also don't use Facebook, but I've used many other sites.
Like it or not, these venues are what sets the public agenda now. Ideas matter and social media plays a key role in spreading ideas.
Let's pretend I am "wrong" about something. I could be wrong due to a lack of information. I can be wrong for emphasizing the wrong thing on a subject. I can be wrong for not understanding a point of view. These are all different classes of errors. Commenting helps bring these out.
OTOH, pretend I am "right" about something. Having to explain my position, I find, clarifies greatly for me, why I believe what I believe. Often I start writing one thing and discover, Oops! That's not the real reason I have my viewpoint.
These things hold true whether or not you meet in person. They continue to be true regardless of whether you know a true identity.
Interesting question--I think it is pertinent, despite some others who commented the opposite.
I dont think 'radicalized' is a fair or accurate word to describe 'lurkers' on social media.
If anything, pseudo-anyonmous commenting systems offer the closest thing to public critique of main stream viewpoints. Just because a great percentage of it it sounds Neanderthal-like does not mean it is bad--it just means you are noticing how dumb most people are for the first time. Change your expectations and weed through the stupid instead of classifying it all as trash and useless. It most certainly is not.
Just a perspective from an early tech adopter, millenial internet lurker for many years before social media-like platforms were broadly accessible.
What does this have to do with Healthcare Information Systems?
I did this.......and then to punish myself I deleted my account:) I feel free...LOL
I have never signed up for a FB account because the negative far outweighs the positive. Highly recommend The Great Hack and also The Social Dilemma (both on Netflix) to get better insight on social media platforms.
I don't use Facebook, so I responded accordingly, but I have had that kind of disagreement on other social media. A couple thoughts:
1.) Arguments on these platforms aren't typically for the people talking. They're for the lurkers who are reading along. Someone willing to put their thoughts down has typically already solidified their opinions but not everyone has.
2.) I have changed my opinion based on arguments I have seen from people I don't know on social media. Not my fundamental values but perspectives around the edges, certainly.
3.) These platforms are where people get radicalized. If everyone they see spouts the same thing, even if it's false, it gains legitimacy.
4.) Similar to #3, seeing the arguments of people you disagree with has value. It makes it harder to dehumanize them if you understand why they feel that way. I get that by thinking about why they said what they did. I hope they get that from seeing my responding rationally.
This might all be hopelessly optimistic, but thinking there's something I can do helps me stay hopeful when I see the news talking about people joining hate groups.