In the physical world, we tend to be careful about how we interact. Most people aren't eager to engage in conflicts with random strangers. It's dangerous, subjects you to liability and injury, and may be a sign you're unhinged. Yet in the virtual world on social media, it seems people are itching for a fight, exchanging barbs and personal insults on Twitter and Facebook (and TW) making a big deal about an issue when they wouldn't normally do so in person.

A recent social media storm was based on a video clip showing a student wearing a MAGA hat and "smirking" in the face of a Vietnam war veteran. Twitter went nuts, people were divided with the left incensed on behalf of the veteran, the right defending the teen, and media generating outrage before much was understood about the situation. Later, a longer version of the video revealed the scene was more complex than it first seemed prompting the NY Times, and CNN to offer a "mea culpa" for jumping to conclusions.They suggested that reporters and everyone else, may need to slow down their response times on social media. Instead of jumping into the fray, they suggest, people need to stop and think before posting, and maybe even not post at all. Have you ever responded in haste based on a misapprehension?

Resisting the lure of social media and the pressure to take sides may be a good idea, but abstaining altogether is difficult for many. The US Supreme Court has referred to social media as "the new public square" where in years gone by accused evildoers were pelted with "muck" by an unruly mob rather than have a trial in court. Rather than quit Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter, another option is to treat social media more like a place where as an observer you can pick up a lot of information while being more reticent to offer opinions and circumspect about posting. Becoming a "boulevardier" in other words. The boulevardier was a French 19th-century literary type who wandered Paris with no particular purpose other than to be in on the scene. Although they didn't appear to do anything besides hanging around, they watched what was happening and developed a deeper understanding of life and changing times. In other words refusing to be swayed by the moment while committing to investigate trends and events rather than ignoring them. The idea of doing nothing is not in vogue at the moment—we're forever optimizing our time and trying to seem extremely active. It may be more therapeutic to observe what goes on in social media without feeling compelled to immediately comment on it. Could you be a boulevardier?

Since 2012, (Facebook's IPO) we've become more invested in internet culture, more outraged and engaged and hungry for the affirmations that social media provides. We want to be liked online and everyone else does too. We think tweeting is doing something, an expression of activism, and we're encouraged to believe engagement is evidence of success. So corporations and strangers seek our likes, retweets, insults, and quips even if sometimes they are negative and even make us sick. In our hyper-connected world, the risk of losing a connection to ourselves and the ability to think independently is greater than ever. It's possible that in vowing to think before we tweet, we may discover that, upon reflection, we don't really have anything of value to add. If enough people do this, there might come a day when the public square falls silent. While unlikely, if it were to happen nothing vital will be lost. Either we don't need social media after all, or we can decide to speak only about what matters and only when we know enough about it to opine. We can also avoid attacks on individuals while retaining the right to challenge ideas and argue points of view. Can we at least commit to being more kind and empathetic to each other on social media starting with this TW forum?