Social networks and their bubbles

It seems obvious that the more technological development advances, the more we become loners. When it becomes accessible to acquire everything one likes in a practical and quick way, then all we need least is to know the opinion of others. I'm not that old, but I remember that a few years ago we had to listen, always on the same radio and TV stations, to the same content. Today, in a way, this has changed for the better in the sense that we can put aside a way in which we receive the content and have the mechanism of choice among certain media (although, for convenience, we accept everything that is pre-selected by Netflix and Spotify). The problem is the other extreme, as we well know: if we do not have to agree with the majority, we also do not need anything more comprehensive and popular.

Do not get me wrong: this is not a defense for anyone who thinks the music or entertainment industry is going to mess with the world again. Some may argue: but is not a Blockbuster an influential one today? I do not believe. From what is perceived, people forget that billionaire figures do not represent, for example, the population increase. We should, in this case, look more towards the extent to which the general public is reached.

The fact is that the other way has absorbed too many people. And social networks have potentiated this. We are influenced by people close to us, and by one or the other of similar taste. Facebook, in a purposeful way, seeks content that fits our profile, which influences our actions in relation to the choice of content. Our relationships, on account of this, drastically reduce, and we feel good inside this bubble, where everyone thinks similar, tailor-made. When they do not think it, the blocking is done very simply.

There are cases and cases. Some people need to be isolated for a time so that their studies or practices that require concentration are not disturbed, so that their contacts are restricted to professionals or academics (healthy, of course, for a certain length of time). However, isolation as a rule makes us stingy with who is aware of what is happening out there.

See that this is even more formidable from the Christian point of view. How will we know our neighbor if we stay away? I know that we can not fall into the debate of the "young people of today" of Socrates. We know, for example, that heated theological discussions about theology have made countries hate each other in the past, with persecutions, murders, and all kinds of cruelty. The solution was that "the bothered withdraw", which in a way shaped some regions of the world. Today, that does not make much sense, but to a certain extent the heated debate makes Christians "coexist in disunity."

Again, notice about not being here universalistic, but just realistic. The idea of ​​the so-called ecumenism, to a large extent, seems really fearsome. However, Christians, regardless of their theological line, largely agree with issues that are the focus today in major debates, such as abortion, drug release, among others controversially. The disunity, provoked by theological bias, ends up influencing society, which is shared not only by Christians, but also by communists, atheists and corporatist.

I know that many dislike this expression, but the middle ground is necessary. Between asceticism, which preaches the regulated Christian life and away from contact with the world - and of the important decisions, consequently, or universalism, where we must have uncontrollable contact with the world, since all in the end will be saved. We must therefore go out into the world, get out of our bubbles, and preach the gospel, regardless of who we are, with Christ as our example.