In Defense of the Twitter Quitter
You don’t need to stay on Twitter and ‘fight’
The evolution, or better stated, the degeneration of Twitter these last months has raised meaningful questions for journalists, politicians, advertisers, and public and private figures alike who benefit from sharing their thoughts on social media. Remaining on Twitter now is not necessary, helpful, or courageous.
Highly charged expression has long been rewarded and amplified by various social media platforms, often regardless of inaccuracy or harm done. Today’s Twitter is becoming a hellscape where cattiness, brutish or petty attacks, and racial, religious, ethnic, political hatred gushes through a general sewage system of the worst and ugliest of human impulses, promulgated by algorithms with the same goal as other social media companies: to capture your screen time.
However, this by itself does not necessitate an exodus of responsible actors from Twitter. It is true that in many cases one ought to defend information space and not cede any ground to extremists or bullies. There are instances where staying and fighting is the right decision. But other factors – not only virulent strains of hate – combine to eradicate the benefits of electing Twitter as the locale to express your thoughts. Here are four reasons why:
1. Twitter is bad fighting ground
Some argue that it is folly to ever abandon information space to extremist or fascist-leaning actors. Ruth Ben Ghiat recently wrote: “It is more important than ever to stay on Twitter now. This is an information war, and DT is a skilled and tenacious warrior. Removing yourself voluntarily from the field of battle helps the right to win this war.” And Mary Trump simply wrote, “Stay.” It is true that contesting misinformation and extremist or abusive content is essential, and it is accurate to understand this as an information battle. However, just like in military combat, it is important to choose good fighting ground when feasible. Twitter is bad fighting ground for responsible actors. It is now the fiefdom of a single person who relishes in the impolite, to be charitable. It is now an open field where rules and common decency have given way to jungle law. If all other avenues of expression were closed, it might make good sense to fight uphill and make arguments on Twitter despite the gutters spewing abuse and hate. But with countless other traditional and social media outlets available, this is not the place to stay and fight. Furthermore, if responsible actors do feel compelled to fight on Twitter, they may as well do the same on Truth Social, Parler, Gab, and Telegram.
2. Twitter is now a private company that benefits one man
If Twitter were a publicly owned corporation or managed by a conglomerate, and the purpose of the company was its own efficacy and success, there might be more merit to fending off extremists, trolls, and those spewing hateful rhetoric. That is not the case. This company now belongs to a single man. Your engagement is both literal and symbolic support for him and his product. Any user is free to do so, of course, but it must be recognized that this is an action in support of Twitter and its ownership. It is difficult to understand how and why anyone could remain active on Twitter while bemoaning the actions of its owner and the company itself. Your choice to spend your screen time on the platform and use it as the locale to share your thoughts is an endorsement. Conversely, the decision to express your thoughts elsewhere is a rebuke of the company and the manner in which it is run. You are not required to patronize Elon Musk’s personal product. But have no doubt that remaining on Twitter does just that. Musk claims, “Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences! In addition to adhering to the laws of the land, our platform must be warm and welcoming to all…” He will alone decide what that means. It is a not a public platform, it is his platform.
3. You are the product on social media
The social media phenomenon of the last two decades is in some ways novel in information and entertainment history. In the entertainment sphere, such as it was, there have traditionally been entertainers and audiences. In this model, entertainers had the power of choosing where, when, and how to perform, while audiences had the power of choosing where, when, and how to watch or listen. In the information sphere, news outlets and sources of relevant or interesting information likewise had choices about dissemination and audiences had choices about reception, traditionally all within the bounds of government regulations and law. If a new medium was created, like radio or television, this would require governments to catch up and oversee the manner of information distribution and regulation, such as led to the formation of the FCC. In social media, everyone is a producer and a consumer. That means that each user has the power of choosing where and how to create ideas and where and how to observe and collect information. Those urging combat in the information space would do well to bear this reality in mind.
On Twitter and other platforms, it can be argued that responsible actors – not trolls, extremists, and purveyors of hate and abuse – constitute both the critical audience and the critical production team. The Parler and Truth Social platforms are chock full of trolls and ‘haters’. But platforms in which hate and outrageous expression drown out civilized exchange have reduced value and reach, specifically because this is a place where trolls, and few others, go. If you are a responsible and reasonable person, your screen time carries significant value, and your expressions constitute a commodity that can be monetized. It is not that fighting for information space is not worthwhile. It is that your time, energy, output, and screen time constitute the product. By insisting on conducting your battle on Twitter, you stand up the platform.
4. Haters desperately want to engage with you
Those with a focus on antagonizing and disseminating hate speech and abuse require your presence. They don’t want to preach to their own choir; they want to talk to you. In some cases, engaging in dialogue can be worthwhile, but you will do well to choose that moment carefully and pay a great deal of attention to who benefits from this exchange. A virus can only survive by attacking a healthy host – not other viruses. Similarly, abusive users can only satisfy themselves in the extremists echo chambers for so long. They yearn to attack, and you may be providing a target which will benefit them, and the owner of the platform, far more than it will ever benefit you.
Given this, the best solution may be for users to leave en masse. Twitter may then become a free-for-all cesspool of the worst of humanity, but it is headed in that direction anyway. Responsible actors staying and fighting simply prop up a decaying platform, enabling misinformation and hate speech to ride on the coattails of a platform whose existence and relevance is largely sustained by your engagement and screen time. When responsible actors leave, there is certainly a vacuum which will inevitably be occupied by those accounts which spew the most ignorant and hateful content. But it will also demonstrate that the platform has become this sort of free-for-all space. Twitter users can then compete for attention among other purveyors of uncensored content, where the worst instincts of humanity bubble up and coalesce. Meanwhile, responsible users can elect to post content on other platforms with content moderation, where basic human dignity, common courtesy, and grown-up social interaction is enforced and regulated. It may take time for new platforms to spring up and offer the reach and ease of use that Twitter had, but the cost of endorsing the existing structure ought to be weighed carefully. In any case, the argument against ceding information space is not a bad one, but it is not one size fits all.
The power of social media is your presence – both as a producer and a consumer. Users should not feel obliged to offer their connections or screen time cheaply, automatically, or naively. If a given platform does not align with your values, it is may be time to identify a new home base for your screentime and your ideas. If you believe a platform is an unregulated hellscape of racism, hatred, and abusive content, it is critical to understand that your presence and screen time is helping to maintain the platform itself.