Musk is apparently determined to make Twitter an unserious platform as evident from his hostility to liberalism and decorum (e.g., Cat-turd). Despite his maliciousness, it still has value for those who are looking for real time info on the war, on Iran and hot spots around the globe.
Influencing the press and what gets covered / how things are framed by the media is definitely the most realistic endgame for comms strategy on Twitter. Also, Twitter has always been a good place to put an argument or talking point that you want to spread - give it directly to the politically engaged on Twitter and they'll take the information / talking point / resource and share it on other platforms. As usership goes down, we'll see if that continues to be the case, but I think for now it's still useful in that way (I know a lot of TikTokers who still go to Twitter to find content).
I have never been on Twitter. Certainly not for any intellectually superior reason, but just because I never felt the need for minute-by-minute progress reports on topics that stress me out. Different than real life, where that sort of immediate, incremental update is valuable for things I may actually be able to change.
I can see where it’s valuable for political professionals, though I think it might lead to a bit of catastrophizing along the way.
Since I am not an interested party on Twitter, I wonder if you could answer a question on another topic. I admire Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke. Both talented politicians, very smart, with an admirable political ethic. In each losing two high profile elections, have they reached Harold Stassen status, or could they still be viable candidates? Surely we won’t waste these talents? The Dems discard too much talent.
I used to be an avid Twitter user (not for posting but for getting information), but shortly after the Musk takeover, I left it entirely. I sometimes miss getting takes from people like you and others "in the know" (journalists, legal commentators, politicians, etc.) on breaking news but have found I have much more time for actually reading articles (not just headlines), am sleeping better and generally am more productive and less tense.
Not giving up Twitter any time soon, I've pretty much always use it via Tweetdeck and a comparable 3rd party on my phone - the no ads and multi-column format are much easier to navigate than Twitter itself. Terrified Musk or his minions will bring those to an end, at that point, I'm out. That said, the app brings a variety of content I'd never see otherwise (at least not as conveniently) but having discourse on what I read is still a nightmare. Why should I spend 10 mins researching facts and 20 minutes battling back & forth with users whose only purpose is to spread lies & misinformation? So Dan's last comment about it being a decent platform for speaking is so true. If only we could get people to listen - but then the world as a whole would be entirely different.
Just here to say there are still many activist groups on Twitter and the art community, currently battling and organizing to fight the onslaught of AI and tech bros.
I've been wrestling with how my eyeballs and access to my data empower Musk et. al. to profit from and propagate overt bigotry, lies, and MAGAism in general. I know my individual contribution is infinitesimal, but that's exactly how their business/power model works. Having this better understanding of what my participation on twitter has the potential to accomplish in opposition to MAGAism, and how equally infinitesimal that is, gives me a better context for revising how I participate on that platform - if I do at all.
Great post, Dan. I haven't left Twitter, and for my small world, it does expand my reach. But I don't read it for breaking news, I read it to get links to news stories that I won't see on tv news or in the 3 or 4 newspapers I read. It's how I started reading the Boston Globe, which I'm finding better than the NYT. My husband harangues me about staying on "corrupt" Twitter, but FB isn't much better. I've been checking out Post, and there are good news sources, but also still a lot of fluff. Mostly I like to see the Crooked Media tweets highlighting goofy stuff. Arm's length and healthy skepticism are handy.
On another topic:
Saw you on a Zoom last night and you said it’s hard to come up with a good slogan for the Dems. How about this:
The Democrats make government work for YOU!
Musk is apparently determined to make Twitter an unserious platform as evident from his hostility to liberalism and decorum (e.g., Cat-turd). Despite his maliciousness, it still has value for those who are looking for real time info on the war, on Iran and hot spots around the globe.
Influencing the press and what gets covered / how things are framed by the media is definitely the most realistic endgame for comms strategy on Twitter. Also, Twitter has always been a good place to put an argument or talking point that you want to spread - give it directly to the politically engaged on Twitter and they'll take the information / talking point / resource and share it on other platforms. As usership goes down, we'll see if that continues to be the case, but I think for now it's still useful in that way (I know a lot of TikTokers who still go to Twitter to find content).
I have never been on Twitter. Certainly not for any intellectually superior reason, but just because I never felt the need for minute-by-minute progress reports on topics that stress me out. Different than real life, where that sort of immediate, incremental update is valuable for things I may actually be able to change.
I can see where it’s valuable for political professionals, though I think it might lead to a bit of catastrophizing along the way.
Since I am not an interested party on Twitter, I wonder if you could answer a question on another topic. I admire Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke. Both talented politicians, very smart, with an admirable political ethic. In each losing two high profile elections, have they reached Harold Stassen status, or could they still be viable candidates? Surely we won’t waste these talents? The Dems discard too much talent.
Pretty sure my post on the message box about leaving twitter inspired this...;-)
I used to be an avid Twitter user (not for posting but for getting information), but shortly after the Musk takeover, I left it entirely. I sometimes miss getting takes from people like you and others "in the know" (journalists, legal commentators, politicians, etc.) on breaking news but have found I have much more time for actually reading articles (not just headlines), am sleeping better and generally am more productive and less tense.
Not giving up Twitter any time soon, I've pretty much always use it via Tweetdeck and a comparable 3rd party on my phone - the no ads and multi-column format are much easier to navigate than Twitter itself. Terrified Musk or his minions will bring those to an end, at that point, I'm out. That said, the app brings a variety of content I'd never see otherwise (at least not as conveniently) but having discourse on what I read is still a nightmare. Why should I spend 10 mins researching facts and 20 minutes battling back & forth with users whose only purpose is to spread lies & misinformation? So Dan's last comment about it being a decent platform for speaking is so true. If only we could get people to listen - but then the world as a whole would be entirely different.
Just here to say there are still many activist groups on Twitter and the art community, currently battling and organizing to fight the onslaught of AI and tech bros.
This is a really valuable grounding - thanks!
I've been wrestling with how my eyeballs and access to my data empower Musk et. al. to profit from and propagate overt bigotry, lies, and MAGAism in general. I know my individual contribution is infinitesimal, but that's exactly how their business/power model works. Having this better understanding of what my participation on twitter has the potential to accomplish in opposition to MAGAism, and how equally infinitesimal that is, gives me a better context for revising how I participate on that platform - if I do at all.
Great post, Dan. I haven't left Twitter, and for my small world, it does expand my reach. But I don't read it for breaking news, I read it to get links to news stories that I won't see on tv news or in the 3 or 4 newspapers I read. It's how I started reading the Boston Globe, which I'm finding better than the NYT. My husband harangues me about staying on "corrupt" Twitter, but FB isn't much better. I've been checking out Post, and there are good news sources, but also still a lot of fluff. Mostly I like to see the Crooked Media tweets highlighting goofy stuff. Arm's length and healthy skepticism are handy.