When Social Media Stops Being Social

A Finnish political media, Verkkouutiset, had drawn attention to the fragmentation of political discussion on social media, resulting from the fact that many people follow only those whose opinions are close to their own. As a result, the term “social media” no longer really describes what it is; rather, it has become a platform for bubble formation or— as it used to be put— a like-minded circle jerk.

An excellent example of this is X, formerly Twitter, where discussion is almost unmoderated. However, there are several ways to shape one’s feed toward such a circle and eventually drift into a so-called rabbit hole, where a person is drawn ever deeper into one type of content.

As a result, the discussions one encounters on social media end up consisting almost entirely of messages representing a single worldview—one whose challenges remain unseen and perhaps even unrecognized.

* * *

It does not necessarily have to be this way, even though X—like, as far as I understand, nearly all social media platforms—uses an algorithm that serves users content based on their past behavior, “inferring” what they want to read.

In addition, everyone can choose whose posts they follow: for many, this means people whose opinions align with their own. But one could just as well follow the entire political spectrum on X, from the far left to the far right, from Nazis to anarchists.

Likewise, those who prefer their own circle can choose to make their posts visible only to selected audiences, excluding those whose views they do not wish to engage with. In doing so, however, they also forgo those people’s comments—and the challenge those comments might pose to their own thinking.

Even this has not been enough for everyone. Politically liberal and left-leaning groups created their own platform, Bluesky, a few years ago. Similarly, U.S. President Donald Trump launched his own platform, Truth Social.

Thus, what was once a platform known for lively political debate among adults has evolved into something where the very “social” nature of social forums can be questioned—something that fosters people raised in rabbit holes, whose worldview grows narrower day by day.

* * *

Blogs are also considered social media, including this one, Thoughts of the Professor, whose subtitle emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech.

As long-time readers know, my own writings are also politically opinionated and express my views on the issues at hand. But that does not mean I would not want to see opinions differing from my own in the discussions following each post—even ones that challenge me radically.

On the contrary, such views are highly welcome, as they offer alternative perspectives and provide material for both myself and my readers to develop our thinking and worldview.

That is why I hope criticism does not disappear from discussions related to Thoughts of the Professor – or its Finnish equivalent, Professorin ajatuksia – but instead evolves into high-quality, serious argumentation. After all, the blog’s original purpose is ultimately to be part of the broader political conversation in our society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Most Finnish Journalism Students Lean Toward the Ultra-Liberal Far Left
English or Finnish — That’s the Question
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges

Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots

Volodymyr Zelenskyi's visit to the USA did not end well for the Ukrainians. Instead, it became an event that will be remembered even decades from now.

Finnish professor of American studies, Mikko Saikku from the University of Helsinki, assessed that Ukraine's President made "a tactical misstep. As I understand it, he had been warned not to publicly correct Trump’s statements, even if there was every reason to do so."

According to Saikku, Zelenskyi should have been more cautious in the meeting because the position of a petitioner is always inherently weak, and Trump clearly does not consider Ukraine's fate a personal concern. Furthermore, "Zelenskyi has long been an unpalatable figure to Trump because he is closely linked to Trump's first-term impeachment trial."

* * *

French President Emmanuel Macron stated that the one gambling with the outbreak of a third world war is Russian President Vladimir Putin, not Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyi, as Trump incorrectly claimed. He also expressed hope that the United States would remain committed to defending democracy, as it always has.

For my part, I suspect that the current U.S. president may have fallen into a Moscow honey trap long ago, as has been suggested for years. In this scenario, he would have ended up engaging in sexual activities with Russian prostitutes in front of hidden cameras and microphones. This would explain quite well the current U.S. president’s toothlessness regarding Vladimir Putin.

* * *

That said, the kind of political rhetoric witnessed in the U.S. is not new but rather quite old-fashioned. In fact, such an example was set as early as 1571 by Russia’s Tsar Ivan IV, known as Ivan the Terrible, and Sweden’s King John III Vasa.

It was initiated by Putin's distant predecessor, the Russian autocrat, who wrote to the Swedish king as follows:

"We, Ivan Vasilyevich, Lord and Grand Prince of all Russia, ruler of Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, etc., write to John, son of Gustav, who, according to his own claim, is King of Sweden, the Goths, and the Wends, and who, on his father's side, descends from a certain village in Småland. You do not know at all how you should write to us."

He went on to state that Sweden was not "a vast kingdom capable of defending you against all your enemies."

Finally, the Tsar concluded: "In your last letter, you wrote that you wish to keep the peace with us. If you were wise, you would understand that the distance from the earth to heaven is long."

John, son of Gustav Vasa, responded to the Tsar’s diplomatic phrasing in a letter dated April 18, 1573, as follows:

"What absurd and boorish arrogance, lies, and belittlement you direct at us. Surely, your father must have been some monk or peasant, since you write so incompetently, as if you had grown up among peasants and vagrants who understand nothing of honor."

John further continued:

"We thank God that all Christian kings have given us the respect we deserve, except for you, who possesses only the intellect of a pig."

Finally, John emptied his verbal arsenal by stating:

"May you yourself become a mere 'stratnik' (low-ranking servant), a dishonorable slave, an unchristian chief liar, and a tyrant, which you already truly are, since you do not value promises, honor, seals, letters, or truth, as has been well proven."

I leave it to you, my esteemed readers, to assess whether this distant historical example is fitting for Donald Trump and his administration. To my ears, at least, it did not sound civilized.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Trump’s America: Criminal or Benefactor?
Is President Putin on his way to repeat the destiny of Czar Nicholas II?

Finnair Pilots' Actions Spark Employer Countermove

Finnair is a Finnish airline whose pilots have recently engaged in various industrial actions, such as standby duty bans, leading to flight cancellations. The underlying reason for these actions is their demand for significant pay raises, as the pilots had previously accepted salary cuts to help save their employer, which had fallen into heavy losses.

However, the pilots now have something new to consider, as Finnair has announced the start of negotiations regarding pilot layoffs. The reason for this is an arrangement in which Finnair had leased two of its A330 aircraft, along with their crews, to a partner company. Finnair pilots have been operating flights on these aircraft from Bangkok and Singapore to Sydney.

According to Finnair, this arrangement has allowed the airline to put its A330 aircraft to productive use and provide work for around 90 pilots, even though, with Russian airspace closed, there would not have been enough demand for these aircraft otherwise. Despite this, the pilots' union has now expanded its industrial actions to include the critical Bangkok and Singapore flights, as well as the Sydney flights operated for the partner company.

As a result, Finnair is no longer able to operate these partnership flights reliably and has therefore started discussions with its partner regarding next steps, which include the possibility of terminating the agreement—and consequently laying off the pilots involved in these operations. It remains to be seen how the pilots' union will respond to this development.

In my view, there are three possible outcomes. Either the pilots call off their industrial actions related to this partnership, abandon their push for significant pay raises to save those at risk of being laid off, or—what I consider the most likely scenario—the situation escalates even further. At this stage, one thing is clear: the labor dispute is being played with stakes so unusual that such a situation has rarely been seen in Finland.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Do Finns have the patience?
Why Can't Finland Find Workforce?
A nurse´s question: who deserves health care, and who does not

Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges

The text above is my thought that "As long as a society has a true freedom of speech it cannot be completely rotten. However, all totally rotten societies are lacking the true freedom of speech."

The text is placed there because Finns seem to have significant difficulties in accepting freedom of speech. The most recent example of this was provided by the Finnish Green Party, which has decided to leave the social media platform known as X.

According to the party, societal discussion on X is no longer relevant due to the systematic hate speech, conspiracy theories, and disinformation spreading on the platform. They are correct in that all three undeniably occur frequently on X. However, they are wrong in claiming that societal discussion is no longer relevant on that platform, as it has been conducted specifically, explicitly, and practically only there.

Sure, the world is full of social media platforms, but it is precisely on X where open societal discussion has taken place. And it is precisely there where anyone could directly comment on anyone else's posts and provide reasoning. Of course, this often happens in an inappropriate manner, but in my view, both political extremes have been especially guilty of this.

If the Finnish Greens and the broader political left leave X, there is a risk that societal discussion will revert to a time when each ideological group had its own insular forum, making fruitful dialogue—or achieving mutual understanding—practically impossible. And it might not be possible in the future either, not even in the utopian world of the Greens. 

* * *

This relates to the perspective of Finnish Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, who has stated that the EU can impose significant fines and penalties on X if the platform does not meet the Union's requirements. According to her, "In Europe, everyone has freedom of speech and opinion. However, X has a specific obligation, derived from our laws, to assess and mitigate systemic risks related to our electoral systems and public discourse."

Virkkunen's comment arose after X conducted an interview with Alice Weidel, the vice-chair of Germany's second most popular party, the AfD. However, under EU legislation, platforms are required to ensure that certain political views are not favored over others. In other words, the commissioner would like to compel X to also interview representatives of other German parties.

It remains to be seen whether Elon Musk will comply with such demands—or if he will allow others to organize similar interviews on their own, which could then be featured on X. From the perspective of freedom of speech, it would be beneficial if this were possible—after all, Musk himself has emphasized that X is a platform for citizen journalism, where everyone can create their own content.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Criticism from the Left Brought a Small Association’s Independence Day March into the Spotlight
Freedom of Speech in Danger
Finnish MEPs Saramo and Tynkkynen Engage in Social Media Clash Over Ukraine Support

The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman violates the law on openness

In Finland, there is an authority named the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman, which operates to provide statements related to its field and also comments on matters through social media. In messaging service X, this authority has most recently conveyed information stating, "The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman assesses that the closure of almost all eastern border crossing points and the concentration of seeking international protection at the Raja-Jooseppi border crossing endangers the right to seek asylum."

If one attempts to respond to the message, it is not possible, and comments can only be given from accounts specifically mentioned by the ombudsman. I am not one of those account owners, and neither is Minister of Justice Leena Meri.

This is perplexing, as the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman is a publicly funded entity serving taxpayers and should cater to the entire population. However, as evident from the above, this is not the case, prompting the question of why.

The issue at hand is why this particular authority is not inherently open to public discourse—or even public dialogue with the government of the country—but instead predefines with whom it is willing to engage.

Therefore, it is pertinent to inquire how this operational model aligns with the purpose stated in the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, which, in clear Finnish language, articulates that "the purpose of the statutory right of access to information and the obligations of authorities is to implement openness in the activities of the authorities, provide individuals and communities the opportunity to monitor the use of public authority and public funds, freely form their opinions, influence the exercise of public authority, and monitor their rights and interests."

Finally, it is worth noting that the current Non-Discrimination Ombudsman is Kristina Stenman, who previously served in the Refugee Advice Centre, assisted far-left professor Martin Scheinin and worked as a city manager. She assumed office on August 1, 2020, having been appointed by the government of Prime Minister Sanna Marin.

The original thought in Finnish:
Yhdenvertaisuusvaltuutettu ja laki viranomaisen toiminnan julkisuudesta

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Freudian slip, 9-year-old girl and cultural appropriation
A Finnish police officer is afraid to speak about the problems of immigration
"Woke" pushes American science academies to favor women in their membership selections

Putin´s Russia got mad about the Finnish chairman of the Parliament

Jussi Halla-aho of the Finns party was elected as the Chairman of the Finnish Parliament, after which he delivered a speech emphasizing the importance of respecting others.

Halla-aho reminded the Members of Parliament of their right and duty to bring to the parliamentary debate the values, opinions, and perspectives that the people have elected them to represent and promote. He also advised his colleagues that "adhering to the truth can be understood, for example, as not intentionally misinterpreting the statements of those who hold different opinions or constructing caricatures out of them. Besides justice, truth, and the constitution, representatives are not bound by any other directives."

Furthermore, he emphasized civilized manners by stating that "a discussion that respects differing opinions and values, including one's own, can bring us closer to common understandings. But if such understandings cannot be reached, ultimately the majority decides. This is how democracy works, and this is good."

Naturally, the Chairman's views may be considered self-evident, but it is excellent that they are articulated aloud. This is how a civilized state operates.

Unfortunately, Putin's Russia cannot be considered as such. And to make it clear to everyone, the state-owned news agency Ria Novosti reported that "Deputy Jussi Halla-aho, who called for the murder of Russian soldiers, was elected the new speaker of the Finnish Parliament. He is known for his anti-Russian statements and actions". 

The reason was that after the cowardly Russian attack to Ukraine Halla-aho donated to the Armed Forces of Ukraine an artillery shell with an inscription "For the freedom of Finland". He justified this by stating, "the war is initiated and perpetuated by Russia. The war will end only when enough Russian soldiers have been killed, making it politically or militarily impossible for the rulers of Russia to continue the war. Therefore, killing Russian soldiers is a good thing, and Ukrainians should be assisted in killing them."

By the way, Halla-aho speaks fluent Russian and Ukrainian. That's why he has no problem in understanding the deepest nature of both nations.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
Finnish Winter war showed the way to help Ukraine
Political rats and useful idiots
Twitter account of an remarkable politician was locked