Weeks or maybe even months ago, the Lawton Grapevine took a political stance of "No National Politics." Given how politics have been discussed over the last decade, I totally understand a move like that. Brutal and vicious are the two words that come to my mind when I think about how politics have been going, and it's 100% the fault of social media that has caused politics to do so. Sticks and stones can't break bones if you cower behind an anonymous screen. Plus, not allowing any national politics is pretty fair to both sides, at least to suppress both sides equally is fair treatment of the whole... but recent posts have some crying foul.

I believe, sometime over the weekend when the AP called the presidential race for Mr. Biden, one member of the group posted a picture showing a little pride for Vice President Elect Kamala Harris akin to shattering a glass ceiling. As the first future elected female to the office, it is a monumental thing that she has achieved. Since this is/was national politics, and the "always on top of it" moderators hadn't taken it down, there was a glimmer on the horizon that the ban on national politics was over and people were free to speak their mind once again... until someone with an opposing political view posted a Thanos/Biden meme which was promptly removed. As the obvious political bias was nearing confirmation, I shoved my phone back in my pocket, flushed, and forgot all about it until the same time this morning.

I'm not here to say they've chosen a side or not, that's up to you...

So here's the question... If you had a successful platform on social media that somehow convinced people to pay for exposure on it, would you be dumb enough to choose a political side and risk alienating half of the people that make selling that exposure possible?