A reader has written in to an advice column struggling with a 30-year friendship where the friend constantly sends disturbing or uninteresting social media videos. Despite the reader repeatedly expressing a preference for positive content, the friend continues to share videos, including conspiracy theories and violent clips. The reader feels their friend doesn't consider their feelings and is unsure how to respond without ending the friendship.
Advice columnist Eleanor Gordon-Smith suggests that the friend may be using social media content as 'bullshit' in the philosophical sense—indifferent to truth or the recipient's reaction. This type of sharing is fast, forgotten, and treats the friend as an audience rather than an interlocutor. Traditional appeals to reason or emotion have failed because the content lacks genuine belief behind it.
Gordon-Smith recommends a new tactic: instead of serious disapproval, the reader should signal bemusement. By reacting with 'What is this?' rather than 'This upsets me,' the reader can position themselves as an outsider to the friend's algorithmic world. This approach acknowledges that people deep in social media rabbit holes often forget their experience isn't universal.
The columnist draws on philosopher Harry Frankfurt's distinction between lies and bullshit. Liars at least engage with truth, but bullshit is indifferent to it. Treating the content as strange rather than false may be more effective, as it steers clear of sombre confrontation and instead highlights the absurdity of the material.
