You know it already, it's all over the news: Elon Musk has bought Twitter for 44 billion dollars.
I think it's a good moment to pause and reflect:
Do I really want to spend so much of my time and attention there?
How much money is that anyway?
What does 44 billions mean?
How to we make sense of such huge numbers?
The World Food Program USA asks another interesting question: How Much Would It Cost to End World Hunger?
They did the maths and found out $40 billion each year would be needed to end world hunger by 2030. So one Twitter would be enough to solve World Hunger for 2023. See ma', Silicon Valley could really make the world a better place!
I'm not saying Elon Musk will do that. He obviously won't.
As Shakespare used to say: to twitt or not to twitt, that's the real question.
Spoiler alert: I dislike Twitter for both accidental and structural reasons.
Why I dislike Twitter as it Currently Exists
The accidental reason for which I dislike Twitter is that for me its leaders are morally bankrupt. And here I'm speaking about both the Elon guy and the people before him.
They have insisted enough already that their meaningless "free speech absolutism" bullshit justifies somehow - mostly by trusting their ideology over their lying eyes - not doing the work necessary to adress the needs of women & other habitual suspects being harassed every day, all day long, on their platforms.
Or even when they allow their engineers to do the hard but necessary work of detecting fascist propaganda, they enable it... but only in Germany π€¦π»ββοΈ
I'm just scratching the surface here, if you want to know more, I highly recommend Mike Monteiro's book Ruined by Design: How Designers Destroyed the World, and What We Can Do to Fix It.
Why a Twitter-like Service Wouldn't Work For Me
There is also an essential reason why I dislike Twitter.
At my worst, I am what Germans call Besserwisser and what xkcd readers call this dude:
So what happens when lots of people like me share an endless feed, designed by psychopaths for "engagement" over meaningful communication, on all polemical topics of the day, all day long, every day, forever?
Right, that cannot possibly end well.
Conclusion
My advice is to give up.
Top comments (72)
I never liked twitter much, but I gave up on it completely when I found som really transphobic hate tweets and realised they just didn't list anything remotely fitting in the reporting reasons.
Since then I just added some user-javascript to remove the "trending" box from the sidebar in my browser and only interact with people I follow (which is mostly people I know) and am constantly trying to convince my friends to migrate to mastodon.
@darkwiiplayer@fosstodon.org, just saying.
Twitter Demetricator by Ben Grosser is a cool extension to remove the metrics designed to make us waste our time on their platform
I used it for a while, and it was fine, but in the end deleting my twitter account was even better.
Removing the metrics sounds like a cool idea, actually! Although I'd probably want to write my own JS for that just for the fun and practice π
It is! It allows you to focus on what is being said rather than on the social proof of who says it and how many tweets and likes it has.
Learning how to do it is a great idea, you can even publish your own extension to do that on other websites after!
I still have a Twitter account but I rarely use it. What happens is that once in a blue moon I open the app, see something I like, see something I don't like... 20 minutes later I've liked 5 comments, but I've also blocked 30 users and have a bad taste in my mouth.
I pretty much never have any negative experiences on the fediverse.
The fediverse?
The fediverse? Yes, the fediverse!
You may have heard the name of one of the popular fediverse servers like Mastondon, but there are a lot of them, and they are all interconnected.
Imagine a federated === decentralized communication network, with everything you would expect these days: user accounts, follow, boost (like), retoot (retweet), topical hashtags, but without the abusive algorithms that incentive "engagement", and no single person or enterprise can own it.
...and for anyone wondering how to do that, here's a handy selector:
twitter.com##div[aria-label='Timeline: Trending now']Isn't a11y great? :)
Here's the whole script I use:
Iβll never understand why people are always worried what others do with their money. π€¦ββοΈ
That's an easy question, thanks for asking.
Aren't you worried when a company dump toxic shit in our rivers?
Aren't you worried when tobacco companies helps people to have lung cancer?
Well for the same reasons, I'm worried about what Twitter, Facebook & cie are doing day after day to our mental health. We have more evidence about that every year and it ain't pretty.
For Facebook, see for example:
In addition to noting with evolutionary biologist George C. Williams in the development of evolutionary medicine that most chronic medical conditions are the consequence of evolutionary mismatches between a stateless environment of nomadic hunter-gatherer life in bands and contemporary human life in sedentary technologically modern state societies (e.g. WEIRD societies),<span class="mw-reflink-text">[67]</span> psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse has argued that evolutionary mismatch is an important factor in the development of certain mental disorders.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[68]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[69]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[70]</span> In 1948, 50 percent of U.S. households owned at least one automobile.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[71]</span> In 2000, a majority of U.S. households had at least one personal computer and internet access the following year.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[72]</span> In 2002, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having a mobile phone.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[73]</span> In September 2007, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having broadband internet at home.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[74]</span> In January 2013, a majorityβ¦
There is a disconnect between being concerned with a given party's wealth, how they use that wealth and the benefits of using social media.
It's fine to address concerns about twitter/social-media as they are, but trying to justify the same points with "but what about using that money to...." is a fallacy.
Elon could have literally set fire to the 44 billion used to buy twitter for no reason at all, and all your other points about twitter are exactly the same. Or alternatively Elon could have been gifted twitter for free, and all your concerns with the platform concerns are also exactly the same.
I think a clearer connection is drawing how software designed to get you to doom scroll is essentially worth 44 billion. Elon's purchase might just be a reminder that no matter what he does to twitter, it's still not worth most people's time.
Finally bringing up world hunger to justify another point tends to result in the "whataboutism fallacy". However in this case you produced enough compelling arguments to stand up your primary statement, so you don't really even need to bring up world hunger.
I think "just give up" might not be the best term. Maybe "retire", or "contemplate its place in our lives"?
I don't disagree with you.
I do however find interesting to note that sometimes a business model is incredibly good because it exploits some flaw in the human mind, and that it happens to affect your physical or mental health. Tobacco, Alcohol, Twitter, Facebook, ... all are really lucrative businesses which who not would not be as lucrative if they had to respect the "first, do not harm" principle.
But is it knowingly harmful? It could be argued anything could be harmful in large quantities. Even something as basic as water could get you killed in large enough quantities.
Ultimately its a business, and like any for-profit business its goal is to seek profits and evade getting sued.
There is also the idea that leveraging "a flaw in the human mind" is some kind of unique angle social media company's use. Except they just build their entire business model around it, and harness technology to make it as effective as possible. It also isn't unique to almost any business.
The run of the mill advertisements are usually designed to provoke an emotional response, as its been shown to be the most effective way for a person to remember it. It isn't the season yet (almost) but why is Santa red? Specifically coca-cola red. Because ads. This isn't even new its 100 years old and still very effective. All to sell you a sugar drink that isn't good for you.
Heck the "end world hunger" site posted earlier uses similar techniques to attract your empathy to get you to donate. I don't think any of this is directly evil or harmful, but they could be when used in excess like anything else.
The idea the world is out to get you is extreme, at the same time the world is not "harmless". Twitter is not completely evil, its also not completely innocent. I don't like the idea of "giving up", I like the idea of taking this knowledge in stride, accepting it and moving on. Possibly even taking a pause to analyze where things as rationally as possible.
Social media isn't always that good for you, but it can be a nice little thing every now and then. Or not, and you get to use something else. To each their own.
I get your point but I draw a line with products who by design hurt their users
Oh yes, it absolutely is! I have looked in depth more at Facebook because Twitter is a small thing compared to Facebook, and here are some research finding about Facebook
"For some users quitting social networking sites is comparable to quitting smoking or giving up alcohol"
"Drugs like alcohol and tobacco could not keep up with social networking sites regarding their level of addictiveness"
"In 2014, Facebook went down for about 30 minutes, prompting several users to call emergency services"
"Adolescents reporting higher ADHD symptoms positively predicted Facebook addiction, persistent negative attitudes about the past and that the future"
"People who are feeling suicidal use the internet to search for suicide methods. Websites provide graphic details and information on how to take your own life. This cannot be right."
"Facebook has been criticized for making people envious and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers."
"As many as one out of three people actually feel worse and less satisfied with their lives after visiting the site."
"Vacation photos and social interaction are the biggest sources of envy. Visitors who contributed the least tended to feel the worst."
"The more people used Facebook, the worse they felt afterwards"
"20 percent of divorce petitions included references to Facebook"
"High levels of Facebook use could result in Facebook-related conflict and breakup/divorce"*
I could go on but that should be enough, here are the references
In addition to noting with evolutionary biologist George C. Williams in the development of evolutionary medicine that most chronic medical conditions are the consequence of evolutionary mismatches between a stateless environment of nomadic hunter-gatherer life in bands and contemporary human life in sedentary technologically modern state societies (e.g. WEIRD societies),<span class="mw-reflink-text">[67]</span> psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse has argued that evolutionary mismatch is an important factor in the development of certain mental disorders.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[68]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[69]</span><span class="mw-reflink-text">[70]</span> In 1948, 50 percent of U.S. households owned at least one automobile.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[71]</span> In 2000, a majority of U.S. households had at least one personal computer and internet access the following year.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[72]</span> In 2002, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having a mobile phone.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[73]</span> In September 2007, a majority of U.S. survey respondents reported having broadband internet at home.<span class="mw-reflink-text">[74]</span> In January 2013, a majorityβ¦
This is a classic example of False equivalence. "Facebook is bad, therefore twitter is also bad".
I've honestly not seen anyone addicted to twitter. In fact, I've personally made many friends and learnt a lot through twitter. I've recieved opportunities as well.
"Facebook has been criticized for making people envious and unhappy due to the constant exposure to positive yet unrepresentative highlights of their peers."
This is bound to happen in each and every social platform. But I think in twitter's case, this is different. Most people I see aren't posting happy things only like on facebook/instagram. There's so much good content, news, memes etc.
Would you agree to me if i said "reddit is bad because i don't like one particular subreddit"
It's not about the platform, it's the content you're consuming. And not only consuming, content that you're interacting with.
And the "Money could have gone somewhere else" ah yes, the classic "this could have solved so many problems". The world works because buy stuff. if it's not directly affecting you, or well, anyone else outside twitter HQ, I don't see why anyone has any problem with it.
If you don't like twitter, just don't use it. Don't go around announcing your departure and then trying to convince others to do the same.
And where's the critisicm for twitter? I've been an active user since years and literally never had any problem.
On the contrary, yes, I left facebook and instagram because of all the reasons you mentioned, they are completely valid. Just don't apply to twitter.
I'm glad Twitter works for you.
To be honest, I never bothered to look up for sources on the toxicity of Twitter because it has been very obvious in my own life until I finallly was able to quit the platform, six months ago or so.
Counter argument: the argument for free market capitalism is that it allocates resources in a manner that is close to optimal. And often this is true. Think WalMart or Amazon.
But here it clearly isn't. In fact it's hard for me to imagine a worse allocation of limited resources than $42 billions for Twitter. Maybe digging holes then filling them again?
Your argument is too generous with the platforms, it can be used to excuse everything.
My counter argument is Kranzberg's First Law which states: βTechnology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.β
Interesting how you left TikTok out! π
That's because I'm old, I don't understand TikTok!
I'm way ahead of you on this as I've never been on twitter in the first place. I've never seen the point. I'm not a fan of texting with people I know privately, and twitter with its 280 character limit is like texting in public with random people.
Fully agree
If Elon turns twitter into a completely private company, I am leaving it for good. I wasn't very active on it, maybe one or two tweets a month, mostly as reply to someone I follow. But it isn't worth it.
I miss the Google+ days. Mastadon is not really an alternative to anything.
I met a lot of good friends through twitter in the 10 years since I started my account, but the last few years have had a lot of decisions that negatively impacted UX and made it more trouble than its worth.
I also own the Hooked book by Nir Eyal and I always wondered why nobody clearly identified this concept. as sociopathic by design to the core. This always remembers me that there are people who think, this whole world is s huge Skinner-box and we are all little rats that beg for treats.
Note, that I still somewhat-actively use Twitter but I only follow tech related things and don't get involved with discussions. Maybe I am ignorant but on the other side that's also a consequence of the design
It is sociopathic indeed.
Beware that depending on how you do it, consuming social media without participating in it can even worse for your mental health than being fully into it.
I've been a user for almost 15 years, and have no issues with it at all.
If you don't engage with idiots on there, it really is super useful. I've found no faster way if getting bugs fixed on software than reporting them directly to the product team/developers via Twitter. I also follow many vibrant communities there that I simply cannot find elsewhere.
I really don't understand people's problem with it
We are all differents, see for exemple my comments here on the Big Five Personality traits
dev.to/jmfayard/comment/22h5b
I'll see you on Twitter.
Well, ever since Google Reader was closed rumours of the death of RSS/Atom feeds make rounds, yet those who still bother writing on their own platforms very often can be syndicated that way.
I find the signal/noise ratio of my feed reader has never been beat by any of the popular platforms.
RSS had so much potential, it's so sad that he never became mainstream and polished enough, and now we have the FB/Twitter feeds instead.
What tools do you use for RSS?
An amazing one I discovered recently is newsletterss.com/ which allows to subscribe to many newsletter without having the clutter in your inbox.
Feedly. Have curated my own news feeds there for many years. Very happy with it
I've found RSS is not as dead as it seems.
I also use Feedly and 90% of the sites that have "blogs" of some kind work with Feedly/RSS. Heck Feedly works directly with twitter and newsletters.
They're two entirely different things. Who in their right mind turns to Twitter or Facebook for news?
I'll answer my own question: sadly, a lot of people. This isn't what these platforms were designed for originally, but laziness from users, and advertising $$$ have morphed them into something else entirely.
It is still possible to use them as they were intended though, and ignore the BS
Many people just don't know how to use the internet.
Did you speak out against Twitter the past 6+ years they've been shadow banning and outright banning anyone who spoke out against the Government/Billionaire/Corporate complex that is destroying and enslaving the world? Or is is only when the pedo loving, government boot lickers who run Twitter's censorship board are replaced by someone who might actually provide a balanced platform to allow free speech to return to Twitter do you post your article? Come on, be honest. Provide a link where you articulated a similar complaint before this one. Otherwise, you are exposed as nothing other than a fraud.
I thought people would say I'm too critical against Twitter so I'm glad you criticize me from the other side.
My general solution if Twitter, Facebook and stuff have too much power[1] and use it badly would be to divide them in 42 smaller entities that would still individually have flaws, but you would have checks and balances because the problems caused by one mini-twitter will be limited by the strength of another mini twitter.
[1] And to be clear, I absolutely believe that Twitter does indeed have too much power.
Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.