I am not an expert on the internet, the new media technologies and so on. Others are, and already there are hundreds of books that examine all this from historical, social, ethical, cultural and scientific perspectives. Many have pointed out the limitations and shortcomings of these new technologies. Here I will briefly mention one new book on this, as well as offer a few personal examples of it.
In the new book Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Are Tearing Us Apart (W. W. Norton, 2025), Nicholas Carr offers a penetrating critique of the new media and how it may be doing more harm than good. In his Prologue he writes:
We live today in a perpetual superbloom—not of flowers but of messages. Our phones have turned us into human transceivers, nodes on a communication network of unprecedented scope and speed. Whatever else we may be doing, we are always receiving and emitting signals, many of which we’re conscious of (words, images, sounds) and others of which we’re not (data on our location, behavior, mood). When we first hooked ourselves up to the network, we did so with excitement and optimism. Being connected to so much information and so many people was thrilling, and it seemed obvious that all those connections would broaden our minds, enlarge our sympathies, and make the world a nicer place. More communication would mean more understanding.
It hasn’t turned out that way. The excitement may still be there—if Instagram doesn’t get you going, TikTok will; if TikTok seems stale, there’s Discord or BeReal or whatever’s next—but the optimism has turned to foreboding. We find ourselves facing a raft of unintended and unforeseen consequences—all the social pathologies on display in Walker Canyon as well as other, darker ones—and like the Lake Elsinore town council we’re frustrated by our inability to address them. we spend our days sharing information, connected as never before, but the more we communicate, the worse things seem to get. Poppies are lush, vibrant, and entrancing. They’re also garish, invasive, and narcotic. (p. 3)
And just one example of how internet communication and the like can have its downsides and restrictions – something many of us have already learned:
If conversing online engendered empathy the way talking in person does, the negative effects of the explosion of self-disclosure would be ameliorated, at least to some degree. Through all those exchanges of messages, all those posts and replies, all those likes and hearts and fire emojis, we would, bit by bit, gain a greater appreciation of the feelings and perspectives of others. But talking through computers is not the same as talking in person. When we speak through screens, we don’t experience the subtle physical cues—the gestures, the expressions, the glances—that often provide a clearer window onto the inner lives of others than do words alone. Nor do we give others the attention that we do when they’re standing or sitting beside us. Indeed, the presence of a phone distances us even from those sitting right next to us. (p, 110)
Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apartby Carr, Nicholas (Author)
Christian ministry and the new media
I use the internet all the time for my ministry, which includes my CultureWatch blogsite. (I never liked that word – it is a website where I post lots of articles and interact with the comments of others). I have it primarily because I think truth matters, and I should try to get truth out into the public arena as much as possible and in as many ways as possible.
And that is why I also have a YouTube page with over 100 podcasts and interviews. And I also am on 6 or 7 social media platforms, the main one being Facebook. The reason remains the same: with the great bulk of the mainstream media pushing secular left agendas, I seek to use any and all means to share truth that will not be heard on the ABC or SBS, or in the Age or the Guardian, and so on – if you happen to live in Australia.
As most media outlets reflect the surrounding anti-Christian, anti-life, and anti-freedom culture, those of us who do still stand for those values need to use whatever means are available to resist all the lies, falsehoods and misinformation.
Memes
I love memes and I use them all the time. But I realise that both the social media in general and things like memes in particular have their limitations. Some of the posts and memes and quotes being shared online are quite good and useful, some are quite bad and unhelpful, and many fall in between.
We know of course that the social media is not an ideal way to share important truth claims or biblical messages. Memes for example are very short and sweet statements that in most cases need to be teased out much further to be fully helpful. But they can at least get the attention of others, and perhaps get them to think a bit about issues.
Let me quickly look at two recent examples of this that I have seen and/or shared. The first meme had these words: “I’ve never met a Christian who left the faith because they didn’t like Jesus, but I’ve met hundreds who left because the Christians around them looked and acted nothing like Jesus. We have to do better and be more like Jesus.”
As with so many of these sorts of quotes, the best reply would be ‘Yes and no’. There is some truth here that we can agree with, but there are also some other things that need to be said as well in order to make it fully accurate and biblical.
Yes, we know that many Christians offer a pretty lousy testimony, and they can indeed turn folks off. We all can improve on this of course. We should seek to be as Christlike as we possibly can. However, we can’t just use others as an excuse – we are responsible for our decisions.
And bear in mind that Jesus was rejected too. He was pure love, grace, humility and compassion. Yet people still turned on him and hated on him. So we can be the best Christians in the world, but some people will still reject us and our Lord. So we need to keep that bigger picture in view.
My second example was a meme put out by “The Transformed Wife, @ godly womanhood”. It went like this:
Why did children in the 1950s act more respectful in public?
They had a mother and father.
Marriage was for a lifetime.
Their fathers worked hard to provide.
Their mothers were home full time.
The rod was used for disobedience.
Children respected authority.
Now as a Christian and a conservative I agreed with the basic sentiments being expressed there. But when I saw the meme twice within an hour, I declined both times to post it. I knew it would get some folks all worked up. But the third time I came upon it I finally did share it. But I realised that I had to once again offer all sorts of qualifications. So I said this with the meme I shared:
Believe it or not, I actually twice declined to share this. Why? Because I knew that some conservatives and Christians (even among my mostly onside friends list) could get uptight about this. Well, here is the scoop: It is a meme (I did not make it). Memes convey general truths in abbreviated form. Are there exceptions to what we find stated here? Are there ‘nuances’ we could include here? Are there some kids who have done pretty good without a mum and dad cemented by marriage? Yes to all three. But the social science data clearly shows that in most cases, kids do best when raised in households more or less fitting this description. If you are still ready to string me up, maybe take a chill pill first, or actually pray first before lashing out. OK?
Even then I figured I needed to say more, so in the first comment under it I said this “What I said above shows how far the ‘I’m offended’ and the ‘I’m easily triggered’ culture is getting, with even some conservatives and Christians who are not immune from this sadly.”
Over time I have come to see on the social media that there will always be some folks who will get upset with you and what you share. Though I would like to think my carefully vetted online friends are basically onside, I still find some wanting to go to war over things. I recently lost one gal who had been a longtime friend who went a bit ballistic over a post, and she unfriended me. It hurt a lot to get this treatment which seemed quite unwarranted to me.
And in addition to those who are easily upset or offended, or who overmuch rely on emotional responses, there are those who lack a sense of humour, or who cannot easily discern satire, or who just have too many issues, and they are happy to lash out at others over seemingly inconsequential things.
So now before I post something or share something, I have to think twice. I need to ask myself: Do I need to qualify this first? Do I need to attach a ‘this post might trigger some people’ warning? Do I need to explain things so much that a neat punchy meme will die the death of a thousand qualifications?
Just about every point raised in my second example above can easily be further discussed, amplified and qualified. But in a short punchy meme everything that MIGHT be said about a subject must NOT be. If you tried, you would not have a meme anymore but a book!
Which by the way is why I do write books, as well as lengthy and detailed articles. It is there that I can offer all the detail, the context, and the qualifications. But a short social media post or a snappy meme does not provide all that. And they are not intended to.
So I guess increasingly in the future if I stay on the social media, I will have to constantly preface things, explain things, or qualify things. Either that, or get off the social media altogether, knowing its very real limitations and shortcomings. An author like Nicholas Carr would probably shout ‘amen’ at that option.
