Amman — “I will remain silent and stay away from social media until things calm down. I would rather not write anything that could be misunderstood.” Such statements have begun appearing amid rapidly unfolding events, conflicting positions and competing interpretations, in a climate where expressing an opinion is no longer a casual act free of careful consideration.
اضافة اعلان
Between those who chose silence from the outset, those who announced a temporary withdrawal from discussions, and those who deleted comments or removed posts after finding that the reactions had taken them in an unintended direction, a growing sense of hesitation and caution is emerging around self-expression, particularly among people with influential opinions or positions likely to spark widespread controversy.
The question is no longer limited to what users want to say. It now extends to how their words might be understood, who might read them and what reactions they could provoke. This is especially true as local, regional and international events increasingly overlap and unfold rapidly, with positions intersecting and sometimes shifting. As a result, silence has come to dominate discussions whose direction is difficult to control, amid fears of being misunderstood, facing social backlash or encountering potential legal consequences.
A review of discussions on these platforms shows that some users have become more hesitant before publishing their opinions, while others retract what they have written minutes or hours later after encountering mixed reactions. Some comments interpret their words differently, while others place them in direct confrontation with opposing views.
A person who publishes a post may find themselves compelled to clarify and defend their position, even when their intended message did not necessarily carry the meaning others attributed to it. To avoid escalating controversy or becoming drawn into endless discussions, particularly when comments turn into attacks or accusations about motives, some users choose to observe events from a distance.
Fear of becoming embroiled in disputes
In Jordan, these questions have taken on added significance amid recent local events, alongside regional and international developments that have prompted divergent opinions and extensive debate. Some users may hesitate to express their positions for fear of falling out with friends, acquaintances or colleagues, while others are concerned about potential legal consequences.
Waad Omar believes that silence in such circumstances is not necessarily connected to any of the interpretations being discussed. She has observed a decline in social media engagement during periods of war and distressing events, alongside changes in the types of topics users discuss.
She says the emotions that dominate people during such circumstances, accompanied by anguish, conflicting thoughts and shock at what is happening, can create considerable room for silence, even as people continue reading, writing and trying to maintain their daily lives while accepting or coming to terms with reality.
Aref Abdul Karim also believes that silence on social media may stem from a desire to take time and formulate a response that does justice to the subject being discussed. This can sometimes be difficult amid the fast pace of daily life.
Yousef Mansoub, meanwhile, says that silence on social media can sometimes be the best response, as it reflects concern and respect for others and helps avoid misunderstandings and disputes. It also allows people time to think carefully before expressing their opinions.
Dr. Nisreen Abdullah Al-Bahri, associate professor in the Department of Sociology at Mutah University, explains that social silence is not a phenomenon with a single explanation. It cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence of fear, indifference or a lack of awareness. Rather, it is a behaviour shaped by the interaction between the nature of an event, an individual's characteristics, the surrounding social environment and the extent to which that person feels safe expressing an opinion.
Turning personal convictions into a subject of public debate
Al-Bahri notes that silence on public and sensitive issues may be a response to social pressure and fear of criticism, rejection or isolation. This is explained by the “spiral of silence” theory, which describes how individuals may avoid expressing their views when they feel those views could conflict with the prevailing opinion in their social environment.
She explains that, in some cases, silence can represent a form of social adaptation to an environment in which individuals feel that expressing their opinions may carry social consequences. A healthy society is not necessarily one in which every individual publicly declares their position, but rather one that allows people the freedom to express their views or keep them private without fear of exclusion, public shaming or social punishment.
From a digital media perspective, public relations, communications, business consultancy and digital media consultant Bashir Mreish says that silence does not necessarily mean indifference, just as following events does not necessarily indicate a desire to participate in discussions or comment on them. Some people prefer to follow developments and understand the details before expressing their positions, particularly when information is conflicting or the issue is sensitive.
Mreish adds that some people do not consider social media the appropriate place to express everything they think about, while others do not wish to turn their personal convictions into subjects of public debate. Silence may also result from previous experiences that have made them more cautious about what they publish.
He stresses the need to distinguish between the position a person holds and the position they choose to announce publicly. Not everything someone believes needs to be turned into a post, and not every instance of silence indicates an absence of conviction.
Digital environments that create social pressure
Mreish points out that the widespread presence of social media has made people's positions more visible, but it has also made silence itself open to observation and interpretation. Whereas not speaking once simply meant that a person had not spoken, the absence of a comment today is sometimes interpreted as a message in its own right.
He notes that some digital environments have begun placing social pressure on individuals to declare their positions, as though public participation has become proof of concern, solidarity or belonging. Someone who does not comment may appear to be taking a different position, even when their silence carries no intended meaning.
He adds that followers may develop perceptions of account holders and expectations about their views, particularly when they are media professionals, public figures or people who regularly comment on public affairs. When they do not issue a statement on a sensitive event, questions begin to arise about the reasons for their silence and whether they support or oppose the event, fear expressing their views or have simply chosen not to participate.
However, Mreish points out that such questions may sometimes reveal the audience's desire to have its own positions validated by others more than they reveal the actual stance of the person remaining silent. The public's right to ask questions does not mean that individuals are obliged to explain everything they choose not to publish. Nor can their positions be inferred solely from the absence of a post on their accounts.
Regarding the reasons behind silence, Mreish explains that it may be a way to avoid disputes, criticism and online attacks, or a fear that words will be misunderstood or taken out of context. It may also be a choice based on the personal conviction that certain issues require deeper reflection, or that expressing an opinion does not necessarily mean announcing it to everyone.
He warns against reducing silence to fear or, conversely, treating it as proof of wisdom and awareness. Its motives differ from one person to another, and it may have little to do with a specific position on an event, instead reflecting a desire for privacy or a reluctance to engage in public discussions.
Protecting oneself from pressure and controversy
Mreish stresses the importance of changing how people approach social media platforms and avoiding the assumption that a personal account should serve as a complete record of someone's feelings and convictions. What appears on a screen does not necessarily represent everything happening in a person's life or everything they think.
He also calls for an end to turning public events into tests of loyalty or demanding that others prove their concern through a post or comment. Different ways of expressing oneself should be respected. He clarifies that this does not exempt public figures from discussion or accountability when professional or institutional responsibilities require them to make a public statement. Rather, judgments should be based on the nature of their responsibilities, actions and actual statements, not on assumptions drawn solely from their silence.
From a psychological perspective, Dr. Abdullah Abu Danoun, a specialist in psychotherapy and addiction treatment, believes that silence on social media during controversial events cannot be interpreted as a single behaviour or as evidence of indifference. It may be a conscious means of protecting oneself from pressure and controversy, or a defensive withdrawal linked to fear of reactions or negative judgment. Its meaning depends on the individual's motives and the context in which it occurs, not simply on their decision not to express themselves.
Heightened sensitivity to criticism
Regarding the main psychological factors that lead individuals to remain silent, Abu Danoun says fear of criticism or social rejection is among the most prominent. Some people may view negative comments and public judgment as threats to their social relationships or their image in the eyes of others. This is particularly pronounced among those who experience social anxiety or heightened sensitivity to criticism.
Fear of being misunderstood is another reason people may refrain from expressing their opinions, particularly because written posts lack the tone of voice and facial expressions that help clarify a speaker's intended meaning. This makes them vulnerable to interpretation or being taken out of context.
As a result, some people may avoid expressing their positions for fear that their opinions will be understood differently or that they will be held socially accountable for them. Avoiding polarization is another motivation for silence, particularly amid heated discussions that sometimes push people to choose between two opposing sides, leaving little room for nuanced or undecided positions.
Some individuals may also choose silence to protect their privacy and emotional energy or to avoid potential effects on their social relationships or professional circumstances. Repeated exposure to distressing news and images can also lead to emotional exhaustion, limiting some people's ability to engage and express themselves.
In explaining the phenomenon, Abu Danoun refers to the “spiral of silence” theory, which suggests that individuals may hesitate to express their opinions when they believe those opinions differ from the prevailing view, for fear of isolation or social rejection.
Social media platforms may reinforce this feeling because of the large audiences that can view posts and the difficulty of knowing how others will receive or interpret them. The sense that people are socially expected to declare their positions on every controversial event can create additional psychological pressure.
Expression can sometimes become tied to the image individuals wish to present to others, rather than serving as a spontaneous and honest reflection of their feelings and convictions. This pressure may lead some people to remain silent as a way of preserving their independence and their right to choose what they express and how they express it.
Abu Danoun emphasizes that not publishing a position or comment does not necessarily indicate neutrality, indifference or a lack of awareness. Internal feelings do not always correspond to their public expression. Silence can also be a legitimate personal choice, particularly when individuals prefer to share their grief, anxiety or views within a small circle of trusted people.
Conversely, he explains that silence may warrant attention when it becomes compulsive avoidance driven by fear, or when it is accompanied by persistent anxiety about others' judgment, rumination or accumulated emotions without alternative outlets for expressing them.
Expressing emotions does not have to be public or take place on social media. Talking to a friend, family member or trusted person can be a healthy way to communicate feelings and relieve pressure.
