Reflection of the article "Don’t Fight Flames With Flames Social Media Arguments: Can’t-Win Propositions"

The article, "Don’t Fight Flames With Flames Social Media Arguments: Can’t-Win Propositions" by Nick Bilton argues that social media arguments cannot be won and that people are better off not commenting their opinion. The purpose of this piece was to persuade the audience to believe that social media arguments are pointless and have no valuable outcome. The author deployed a colloquial tone which contributed to a sense of casualness and trust. He wrote with authority on the subject - as a frequent social media user. Bilton made his argument by providing a personal anecdote about giving one's opinion on social media. He stated " Emotions were running high. O.K. — deep breath — last year I got into an argument with a group of people on Twitter about Trayvon Martin". Bilton's use of diction is evident here as he makes painfully clear his shame for posting his opinion on social media. He went on to describe how his friend saw the situation and told him to "ABORT" and how he was pelted with hate-filled comments. Bilton supports his claim by providing several pieces of evidence proving that social media arguments can't be won. He mentions journalists whose advice was to never engage in conversation. Despite using several pieces of evidence to support his claim, the author never points out any good that can come out of social media arguments. In fact, he portrayed the argument as if that was the only side to the story. While the author fails to mention the positives he did however make some valid points about the motive and the speed of the arguments. However, from a wider perspective, it should be noted that social media is increasing awareness of current events. People can learn about current events from watching a short clip on Facebook as opposed to watching the news or reading the newspaper.