No, You Don't Need an Edit Button

It happened again. You quickly ran your fat fingers across the virtual keyboard to write a social media post, gave it a brief review, and tapped SEND. Within minutes you realize you just told the world you were sleeping, instead of speaking, with your boss. Okay, so chances are better you committed a grammar faux pas, like using you're instead of your. To ward off the grammar police, you vie to edit the content.

Hey, we all make mistakes. Blame it on our thumbs or speak-to-text. But is an edit post/comment button the solution? Not when it opens the doors for scams, libel, and manipulation.

As with anything, we need to weigh the pros and cons. So, let's take a look.

One of the worst tweets ever

In July 2016, five Dallas police officers were fatally shot during a Black Lives Matter protest against the police killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. Eleven others—including nine officers—were injured. Hours later, the Dallas PD tweeted a picture of Mark Hughes, mistakenly identifying him as the suspect. The information spread like wildfire and left Hughes running for his life.

The PD's statement would be retweeted about 40,000 times and embedded across hundreds of news sites before being deleted that evening. But it was too late. The damage had been done.

Long after being cleared of any wrongdoing, Hughes and his family received hundreds of death threats. They went into hiding.

Some argue the ability to edit tweets would have cleared Hughes' name much earlier. They're partly correct, as any sites that embedded the tweet would have reflected the correction. Any sites that published screenshots would not be automatically updated. For the most part, editing the nearly-fateful announcement wouldn't have helped as much as you'd think.

Little helps the damage done

Ask any of the three Duke lacrosse players who, in 2006, were falsely accused of raping a student from North Carolina Central University. Despite all charges being dropped, and the former students' success at suing Duke University, they continue to deal with judgment.

"Not a month goes by when I am not reminded of the damage those accusations have had on my reputation and the public's perception of my character." — One of the accused Duke lacrosse players in 2016

The Duke players aren't alone. Ask any person falsely accused of a sex crime if the 'rapist' label ever disappears. It doesn't, just like that lie a former friend told about you, still haunts you from time to time.

Despite the Washington Post and CNN both settling lawsuits with Nicholas Sandmann, one of several Catholic high school students falsely portrayed as aggressors during the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation, he is still met with accusatory angst. Even when media outlets ran corrections and retractions, the initial narrative didn't change across the board.

In September 2020, Transylvania University Assistant Professor Avery Tompkins labeled Sandmann as "atrocious," and vowed to report the student for any wrongdoing. Tompkins later apologized for the comments.

"If he were to cause problems by being disruptive, trolling, or engaging in unethical behavior of any kind, I would immediately document it (just like I would for any student doing the same thing), and he would just be putting himself in a position for me to file a conduct report," — Avery Tompkins, in a since-deleted Facebook post.

To this day, Sandmann is the smug kid who harassed a Native American activist.

Once seen, never forgotten

The simple editing of a tweet isn't going to change most peoples' perception of initially-reported bad guys. Nowadays, it's the first sight of a shocking post or headline that sticks with the reader, even when later debunked. Once the narrative takes hold, most bets are off.

What Sandmann needed was nothing to be posted out of context. The Duke students needed proper investigation before the entire world saw them as rapists. Mark Hughes needed nothing to be tweeted at all.

For any of these scenarios, the next best thing would have been thousands of influencers posting, with the same shock-factor level, confirmations of innocence. But even that wouldn't have been enough to drown out what any account initially posted.

Editing abilities hurt more than they help

Granting users the ability to edit posts and comments - across any platform - is problematic. We can argue it's all about fixing typos, but editing tools can be far more damaging to networks and users' reputations.

Editing supports narrative change

On Facebook, users can edit posts to change the narrative. In the mobile app, one can rewrite the entire text and swap out the image. Yet, all initial reactions and comments remain intact. This means you could express your support for someone's idea or a social issue, gain popular response, then edit the post to reflect support of the complete opposite.

Imagine engaging with and sharing a post about your favorite soccer team making the playoffs, only to later be seen as endorsing a certain political candidate. It can and has been done. And most of the time, you wouldn't notice. But anyone reviewing your social media presence, including potential employers, would see the alignment.

Editing tools suck up resources

Supporting editing functionality is resource-intensive. It's not as simple as "letting someone fix a typo." It requires a rewrite of the content with immediate propagation. Done right, it would create an apparent label, provide a full edit history, and notify everyone who engaged with the original content.

Consider the number of times you wish you could fix a typo. Now consider the number of times you would like to correct grammar, add a tag, or put a word in all caps. The amount of processing and the necessary storage could be vastly more than we could imagine.

Yet another benefit for scammers

On Facebook, scammers use like-farming to harvest data and make money. This is usually done by sharing heartbreaking photos of kids with cancer who want to see the post go viral. You've probably shared some of these. Or, perhaps you've commented on posts to win free passes to Disney.

These types of posts are designed to entice users to like, comment, and share. Using this information to sell user data is but one method. Another is to edit the post to push an agenda or market a product. If one of the contest entry requirements was to like a page, the page itself now has monetary value. Selling Facebook pages with existing engagement and likes can be lucrative. All the new owner needs to do is edit, edit, edit.

Editing can spark debates or sneakily diffuse them

Consider what editing tells others. Even if only to correct a single word's spelling, an edited label is enough to raise eyebrows. It could turn an innocent repair of grammar misuse into a heated debate over potential bait-and-switching.

Or, it could do the opposite. Let's say a troll irks you enough to respond quite heatedly, but later edits his initial comments. Who looks bad now?

Displaying edit history isn't enough

Facebook used to clearly label edited posts. Most people didn't pay attention. Now you have to open a menu to see if there's an edit history. But do you ever really look?

Even a big, bold UPDATED label at the top of a post isn't enough to make everyone read all the way through.

Then, there's this:

No matter which version is displayed in the foreground, anyone can already be in possession of another version. This is done by screenshotting, which no edit button can ever fix. Actor Chris Evens' accidental posting of a nude pic is proof of that.

So, what's the best alternative to an edit button?

Take control of your words

Every computer and mobile device has a note-taking feature. There are hundreds of free text-editing websites and apps. Depending on your settings, most of the apps you use, including social media apps, will highlight typos as you type.

If I want to say something longer than a sentence or two, I typically write it in the Notes app. I review it and fix any issues, then copy and paste it into the post box. If I'm posting in a professional group, I'll even run it through Grammarly.

Most of the time, though, you can catch your mistakes by simply reading what you wrote before tapping the submit button. I read most everything twice before submitting.

If you find you made a grave mistake in a published post or comment? You can always do what Dallas PD should have done immediately—delete it. Then return to your editing app of choice and spruce it up before posting again.

Transparency and honesty are paramount

No amount of editing will save people like Sandmann, Hughes, and the Duke lacrosse players from being victims. They will suffer over that for the rest of their lives.

Hughes faced retaliation not because of Twitter's lack of an edit function. He became a target due to someone jumping the gun, labeling him a suspect.

Sandmann continues to be under attack, despite the presence of editing tools in the form of corrections and retractions.

The Duke lacrosse players will always be rapists in some people's eyes because initial headlines will always speak the loudest.

What we post and how we interact with others on social media affects nearly every aspect of our lives. There are concerns far outweighing the need to fix a typo. Allowing others to edit stories with which we've already engaged is negligent. It's inaccurate and potentially damning.

Pamela Hazelton is an avid writer, marketing and business consultant. She is the founding editor of the Small Business Strong and The Work+Life Balance publications on Medium, and manages the Small Biz Strong Substack. She can be found on several social channels, including Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Parler.