Twitter isn’t a “public square.” I don’t mean to downplay the way this platform can and sometimes does have uplifting effects on people’s lives and careers. But you can’t have a public square without the public, and the public has proven itself to be very resistant to Twitter’s charms. A study by Pew Research found that fewer than one-quarter of U.S. adults use Twitter at all. Of this sliver of the population, an even tinier cohort is responsible for the vast majority of tweets: “The top 25% of users by tweet volume produce 97% of all tweets, while the bottom 75% of users produce just 3%.”
Twitter really is just a weird bubble of self-selecting outlier freaks; we’re disproportionately elite but largely unfollowed by the masses. We’re loud and we’re persistent and we’re representative of nothing in particular. And if what we were doing on Twitter was some kind of threat to the powers that be, well, there would probably already be a well-funded campaign to stop us from tweeting, the way there is a well-funded campaign to strip Democrats of their voting rights.
Besides, there’s another way of thinking about Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. It may be that the very reason it’s happening is precisely because Twitter is already well on its way to becoming a distressed asset without Musk’s influence and thus ripe for the plucking. According to the firm’s own research, Twitter is struggling to maintain the engagement of its most active users, and an overall shift in user interest—from news, sports, and entertainment to cryptocurrency and “not safe for work” content—stands to “make the platform less attractive to advertisers.”
The picture being painted is of a site struggling to stay relevant and influential, to which Musk is going to tether himself like a subprime mortgage in a doomed effort to refurbish a property that can’t be saved. Even in this regard, we should consider whether more tidal forces are at work. Meta, formerly known as Facebook, is also having epochal problems as its “metaverse” play founders and the company (and its founder) shed market value. Maybe what’s happening right now is simple evolution: Social media’s neolithic age is simply giving way to the next era, and the old dinosaurs are sinking in tar.
I think this is kind-of a strange argument, since in a real public square, the equivalent to a 'tweeter' would be someone loudly/publicly espousing some viewpoint, which is probably a similar...
Twitter isn’t a “public square.” I don’t mean to downplay the way this platform can and sometimes does have uplifting effects on people’s lives and careers. But you can’t have a public square without the public, and the public has proven itself to be very resistant to Twitter’s charms. A study by Pew Research found that fewer than one-quarter of U.S. adults use Twitter at all. Of this sliver of the population, an even tinier cohort is responsible for the vast majority of tweets: “The top 25% of users by tweet volume produce 97% of all tweets, while the bottom 75% of users produce just 3%.”
I think this is kind-of a strange argument, since in a real public square, the equivalent to a 'tweeter' would be someone loudly/publicly espousing some viewpoint, which is probably a similar percentage of the population.
I agree that's not the best argument. I still think the comparison holds true for a different reason: "Everyone" walks by public areas in some way or another and are exposed to the people outside...
I agree that's not the best argument. I still think the comparison holds true for a different reason:
"Everyone" walks by public areas in some way or another and are exposed to the people outside the mall, or in a park or wherever there are posters, ads, or someone yelling out their message.
Throughout their lives many will hang a flyer in their neighborhood or similar in their "public square" in one fashion or another.
Only a fraction of the population are ever on twitter, and a small fraction of twitter users actually say something in the space. It's a very insular crowd actually. Most only read about twitter in the news if they read news or find those things in feeds on a different social media platform.
I agree, sort-of. I think there probably should be a cutoff, some size/number of active users for which social media is considered a 'public square', but it's not clear where it should be. In your...
I agree, sort-of. I think there probably should be a cutoff, some size/number of active users for which social media is considered a 'public square', but it's not clear where it should be.
In your analogy, "everyone" walks by public areas, but they don't all walk by the same public area. Similarly, a large fraction of the US interacts with some form of social media, but they don't all interact with the same one (i.e. Twitter).
And depending on the age group, throughout peoples lives many will post on some form of social media in one fashion or another.
I agree. I Norway it's settled law that if you say something in a forum/chat/context where there are around 50 people who can see/hear what you've said, it's considered doing so in a public forum....
I think there probably should be a cutoff, some size/number of active users for which social media is considered a 'public square', but it's not clear where it should be.
I agree. I Norway it's settled law that if you say something in a forum/chat/context where there are around 50 people who can see/hear what you've said, it's considered doing so in a public forum.
I'm very unsure about what I think about the threshold, but the idea of quantifying and codifying this is very important. And that society's all on the same page.
I think it's very important to recognize that a lot of what we do online is public, and that what happens online is real although it doesn't happen in meatspace. For many that's easy to forget.
It's weird that people think they can predict what Twitter will become. Aren't there are a lot of possible futures? Twitter is far from the best possible version of a social network, so it doesn't...
It's weird that people think they can predict what Twitter will become. Aren't there are a lot of possible futures? Twitter is far from the best possible version of a social network, so it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to improve it. And with the wrong changes, it could also be made a lot worse.
Maybe the baseline prediction should be that despite all the drama, it doesn't actually change that much? Often, plans to change things don't test very well and get cancelled.
I think the most likely course is that a few high-profile weirdoes get unbanned and then the company is left on autopilot with no executives and no direction from the new owner. So apart from the...
I think the most likely course is that a few high-profile weirdoes get unbanned and then the company is left on autopilot with no executives and no direction from the new owner. So apart from the optics (which can matter a lot) it won't change very much at all, at least in the short term.
I think this is kind-of a strange argument, since in a real public square, the equivalent to a 'tweeter' would be someone loudly/publicly espousing some viewpoint, which is probably a similar percentage of the population.
I agree that's not the best argument. I still think the comparison holds true for a different reason:
"Everyone" walks by public areas in some way or another and are exposed to the people outside the mall, or in a park or wherever there are posters, ads, or someone yelling out their message.
Throughout their lives many will hang a flyer in their neighborhood or similar in their "public square" in one fashion or another.
Only a fraction of the population are ever on twitter, and a small fraction of twitter users actually say something in the space. It's a very insular crowd actually. Most only read about twitter in the news if they read news or find those things in feeds on a different social media platform.
I agree, sort-of. I think there probably should be a cutoff, some size/number of active users for which social media is considered a 'public square', but it's not clear where it should be.
In your analogy, "everyone" walks by public areas, but they don't all walk by the same public area. Similarly, a large fraction of the US interacts with some form of social media, but they don't all interact with the same one (i.e. Twitter).
And depending on the age group, throughout peoples lives many will post on some form of social media in one fashion or another.
I agree. I Norway it's settled law that if you say something in a forum/chat/context where there are around 50 people who can see/hear what you've said, it's considered doing so in a public forum.
I'm very unsure about what I think about the threshold, but the idea of quantifying and codifying this is very important. And that society's all on the same page.
I think it's very important to recognize that a lot of what we do online is public, and that what happens online is real although it doesn't happen in meatspace. For many that's easy to forget.
It's weird that people think they can predict what Twitter will become. Aren't there are a lot of possible futures? Twitter is far from the best possible version of a social network, so it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to improve it. And with the wrong changes, it could also be made a lot worse.
Maybe the baseline prediction should be that despite all the drama, it doesn't actually change that much? Often, plans to change things don't test very well and get cancelled.
I think the most likely course is that a few high-profile weirdoes get unbanned and then the company is left on autopilot with no executives and no direction from the new owner. So apart from the optics (which can matter a lot) it won't change very much at all, at least in the short term.