Tearing Apart Communication
Social platform primer, and the Twitter's good and bad days
The Teardown
Tuesday :: January 29th, 2019
Like this newsletter? Subscribe here
Want to talk with other subscribers? Join the Slack group: The Teardown Talk
Last Week Follow-Up: Byline Blunder
Some of you were empty-handed last week because you didn’t know where my newsletter landed in your inbox. Gmail often sorted the message into the Promotions tab rather than your standard inbox. My research about the cause points to dollar sign used in the email byline, something I won’t be doing again!
Quick Social Media Primer
Some of my subscribers were in or at my wedding. They may recall the moment during my self-written vow when I said “you know I’m a big social media nerd,” followed by a botched story about a Humans of New York quote. I embellished my social media intent somewhat, but the point was not far off. My presence spans numerous services such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, VSCO, and many more. However, I use only some of them semi-regularly, and even fewer regularly. I define regular use as naturally imbalanced communication — sharing out on occasion while consuming often.
This model is the way lots of us use social media, but some folks are prolific content providers in precise ways. Those of you that often share on Instagram Stories highlight that targeted sharing. By contrast, I rarely post anything in my Stories but view other Stories semi-regularly. Were it not for a single Facebook group about, well, newsletters, I’d delete my Facebook account today.
One of the platforms I regularly use is Twitter. The world’s population has for years been confused about what Twitter is, or isn’t, and whether it’s different or the same as other platforms like Facebook that are often described as competitors. Some acquaintances joke about it as a broadcast mechanism while you’re on the toilet, and one can certainly use it that way, but the value of the platform lies in interests, not drive-by status updates. That usage model, sadly, is for heavy Facebook users.
Bill Simmons hosted a long interview with Jack Dorsey (Twitter CEO) during a recent podcast, and Ben Thompson summarized salient points in his excellent newsletter (subscribers only). I wanted to share a few thoughts about Twitter and some reactions to both pieces.
What Is Twitter
Just after the beginning of the interview, Jack describes early Twitter use at South by Southwest (SXSW) just as that event was burgeoning into a media darling (emphasis mine):
In 2007, we were at South By Southwest, and people used it (Twitter) in a way that they would share what sessions they were visiting, and all the people that were speaking would say something like, you know, if you want to know what sessions I find interesting or what I’m going to, or what bars I’m going to tonight, follow me on Twitter.
And that was also the first South by Southwest that New York Times and Wall Street Journal and major media had presence for the digital aspect of South by Southwest, not just the arts, and we came into focus because of that.
And, after that, to me, this is one of the most beautiful things about Twitter. The people that used it showed us what they wanted it to be.
That last phrase is eerily precise: users showed Twitter what they wanted it to be, and contribute to that feedback loop to this day. What is Twitter? An answer is a place reminiscent of the much larger internet ecosystem — with all of the good, and all of the bad. In that context, more recent negativity surrounding Twitter is symbolic of the larger ecosystem in which it lives: unruly actors are hard to silence.
The Conundrum
The most agreed opinion about Twitter is it has a severe problem with abuse and harassment. Conversation with other users is unfiltered, meaning I can send any of you most anything I want. You have little power to stop me aside from a simple block, cutting you off from my lovely but disagreeable content for good.
During the podcast, Bill and Jack discussed an idea in which users see replies only from users they follow, but Jack’s view is this mechanism inhibits free-flowing healthy and challenging conversation, forcing users into bubbles or echo chambers. Jack also discussed algorithmic solutions to the issue. Perhaps machines can be trained to spot offending content and clamp down before it is amplified far beyond its origin while allowing healthy platform-wide communication. Ben Thompson highlighted this thinking in his newsletter:
Are we seriously supposed to believe that if only Twitter has a machine learning breakthrough that solving climate change might be close behind? That Twitter’s AI will lead to the solution for work displaced by AI? That global disparity will be resolved by ensuring equal access to ordinary people and global leaders, no matter how much abuse must be endured along the way? Indeed, it is suddenly crystal clear to me why it is that Twitter can be so toxic: because the company’s ideals are so lofty. Abuse must be endured so that the world can be saved through global conversation, brought to you by promoted tweets.
These goals reminded me distinctly of Mark Zuckerberg and other various Facebook executives discussing their product’s role in connecting people in all ways. We’ve blown past the point where ordinary folks prefer these platforms play god and fight to enable conversations regardless of quality. Don’t get me wrong, easy communication tools allow lots of productive dialogue. But, the marginal benefits feel like they are disappearing quickly.
What’s interesting is the idea that any of the abuse or harassment is likely to end. It probably won’t, and most of us understand that fact well. We also know that bad actors weren’t magically conceived during the ongoing era of social media — they are just easier to see. Most of us have seen or heard about something unsavory happening in our friend groups. The world is no different.
So, if we assume Twitter can solve the problem, won’t the noise move somewhere else? This is one criticism of closed mobile-focused networks like Telegram where plenty of bad ideas and actors play, but behind closed doors. I’m not sure we want that either. WhatsApp recently limited forwarding to stifle the spread of rumors.
The Value
Facebook’s secondary mission — after serving its advertisers — is understanding my social network, and predicting who or what I might want in my purview. Instagram was once purely about curation but focuses more attention lately on interactions between users rather than visual exploration (e.g., Stories, Direct Message). Twitter is the only candidate among the major platforms focused either on purpose or by accident on interest. Sure, interactions using @-handles and direct messages happen, but there are lots of tweets, tweet-threads, and other media I read without distraction. I often consume but share infrequently. Jack believes in the efficiency of text and I agree: There aren’t many other sources from which I can gather lots of useful information with minimal effort.
Over time, algorithms optimized my feed to show me more of the stuff I like and less of the noise. Am I in my own bubble? Absolutely. Is that bad? I don’t know. I dedicate time to consuming information through other channels — reading news regularly, reading longer-form investigative journalism regularly, and most importantly, talking with people about things I like and dislike and understanding compromise. Try it my way.