I hope I am not the only person who has found themself reading the most infuriating, uncritical, and blatantly incorrect opinions hastily typed and abhorrently misspelt in the comment section of a social media post. Whether it is the writer’s true opinion, was simply authored to anger those who read it, or to form a sense of collective hatred with others, does not seem to matter. My blood is boiling, and I have the urge to tell the person who wrote it just how incredibly wrong they are; yet I am completely unable to do so. Any attempts to engage with this anonymous commenter would surely only anger me further, as their tone makes it clear that they are absolutely unwilling to accept any opinion other than the one they have so confidently immortalised on the internet. 

Personally, I do not have the TikTok app downloaded on my phone; I only recently chose to access the website via my laptop to observe other people’s opinions on the TV show I had been adoring over the summer. There are few stupider things I feel I could have done.

It would be ridiculous for me to suggest that all conversations should happen in person; this is quite frankly not practical – something I know very well as someone who has recently moved to Birmingham, miles away from all those I would care to have in-depth discussions with. My intention, instead, is to advocate for a different approach to online conversations. An approach that moves conversations out of social media comment sections with character limits, and into online exchanges with friends and family, over text or even email. In this way, you can stop finding yourself stuck in an endless cycle of engaging with mind-numbing idiocrasy, when all you wanted was to expand your opinions about a piece of media.

Whether discussing politics or pop culture, the amount of anger generated when dissecting these topics with a friend is notably less than when with a faceless stranger whose only motive in life seems to be to annoy you. 

A recent read of mine, Sally Rooney’s Beautiful World, Where Are You, features two friends living on opposite sides of Ireland, discussing complex socio-political problems over email. Though they do not always agree, this format of conversation allows each of them the space to fully explore their own thoughts without constraint, as well as critically analysing the arguments presented by the other, utilising their own personal or shared experiences to inform this discussion. Reading this, I was struck with envy. If only t all discussions happen in such a manner.

Alongside the weekly releases of season 3 of The Summer I Turned Pretty, I found myself in lengthy text exchanges with my friend over the morality of the characters’ actions. In contrast to scanning my eyes over hundreds of TikTok commenters making harsh black-and-white judgements that are completely lacking in empathy, these conversations felt refreshingly fun. On social media, I felt highly frustrated by an endless barrage of blind hatred towards certain characters or events. Unlike in conversations with people you know, you cannot understand why an anonymous commenter holds the opinions they do. Their opinions feel high stakes and exasperating because it is the only information you have to go off of when it comes to understanding this person you are interacting with. I have noticed that, no matter how similar an opinion my friend expressed about the show, I never felt nearly as angry as when reading the same opinion in a comment section.

The ‘herd mentality’ that runs rampant in social media discourse is notably absent in one-on-one conversation as there is no desire from either of you to acquire social capital by expressing the more commonly held opinions on a piece of media. Additionally, conversing with someone you trust can allow both of you to be more honest, as the fear of judgement that comes from taking the ‘wrong’ side of a debate is significantly reduced. Through thoughtful conversations with people you know, I think you can learn to be more sympathetic about why people hold certain opinions (as there is always room for explanation) and you can have constructive and exciting – rather than angering – conversations.

As Sarah Paris writes, social media is ‘where nuance goes to die’. But we might forget social media is not all there is to the internet. Though, as an 18-year-old, it is difficult for me to remember a time when this was the case, the internet used to be primarily a means of communication. So, I urge you, next time you have an opinion about the album you just listened to or the TV show you cannot seem to stop watching, rather than further diluting the sea of substanceless negativity that is the social media apps on your phone, open WhatsApp or Gmail and rant to your friends about everything that is wrong and everything that is right about it. Or better yet, walk outside and talk to someone. 

If you liked this, read more from Redbrick Comment:

Your Party: Will Reform UK Finally Have a Worthy Opponent?

Killer Labubus: What Does The Influx of Carcinogenic Dolls Say About The Current State Of The World

The Removal of Angela Rayner from Office: Deserved, or a Sad Loss for Women in Politics?