Side note: It's annoying how many tech people started posting their political hot takes since ~2016. I unfollowed everyone who tweeted about politics.
I don't post about politics on my social media feeds, but... I spend increasing amount of time feeling that I should start.
Context:
1. I come from a country that was torn into horrible civil war by populist leaders spouting exactly the same tactics and phrases as some of the North American elected leaders do now.
2. I don't believe in manifest destiny, I'm not religious, and so I don't believe that the average well being in USA and Canada is God given, inevitable, or guaranteed.
3. All it takes for evil to win is for good people to do or say nothing.
So... Is covering my head under the sand like the mythical ostrich and going LaLaLa over next 4 years the polite thing to do, lest somebody unsubscribe? Or do I have all but duty to try to encourage tolerance, bridge communication between my polarized friends and neighbours, speak of my past and hope for the future?
Isn’t that basically Russia
You have to use Google Translate or something, because the page is unavailable in other languages.
The key point is that Russian activists have been trying to influence the large scale politics locally since about 1880 to zero effect.
Based on what you've written, you are choosing between polite self interest (unsubscribes), and vocal group interest (speaking out).
Essentially a choice between helping and staying out of the way.
The real question is your values, the reason you want to speak up in the first place.
In addition, it doesnt look like you want to speak up for the sake of it, but to prevent a dangerous outcome.
For a situation like this, its safe to say you will always be conflicted if you don't speak out.
What you will rue, is speaking out ineffectively. So speaking out without a plan, alienating people - NOT achieving the goal that motivated you in the first place.
At this point, i typically try and come up with a diagnostic question. Something that puts two values a persons holds in conflict.
Eg: If someone gave you a clear set of topics that would prevent this outcome, would you immediately speak up on them, even if you may not agree with the words? (I guarantee that these words prevent the outcome you foresee, and have no hidden knock on effects)
This asks how far you would go to achieve your outcome. Would you be willing to say things you dont like, to prevent populism?
If no, then there are conditions to your goal, or your goal is slightly different.
Knowing your motivations (just want to speak, want to achieve a goal, want to achieve a specific outcome, want someone else to handle it), helps you figure out what you want, and the limits of how far you are willing to engage.
A few years ago a bunch of folks I followed started adding politics to the list of things they would regularly talk about, which I fully support. But I don't owe them my attention and when the topics start to just become a steady stream of undifferentiated ranting about political topics I'm out. Then they would invariably take a self-righteous position to explain the drop in their numbers as people that 'can't handle the truth' and that they are better off without them, when the reality is that they mostly just spammed themselves out of an audience.
Do what you like of course, but for me unless the person is bringing new information or context to the conversation I'm out.
X prefers randos with checkmarks donating money to Elon over people with interesting opinions.
A discover feed that’s not adversarial isn’t strictly necessary but it’s a significant selling point.
I still do this on Twitter and the "For You" feed works great.
With the US going full into homophobia, Christianity and xenophobia it's time to divest from American social media.