Twitter – Social Media’s Step Too Far?

Since the development of the original BBS systems online, the course of discussion through social media has gradually widened the scope of the average internet user. Year by year, the debates widened and the arguments grew deeper and more fascinating - the bar slowly rose. Then Twitter arrived on the scene, and the bar tunnelled straight down into the Earth’s inner core. As one hears more and more frequent talks of what goes wrong on Twitter, it poses the question of what inflames people here more than anywhere else? What is it about Twitter that causes argument to dissolve into abuse? 

One possible answer is the personal nature of a Twitter account. A professional and a private person are entirely different. In one recent case, a particularly obstreperous game reviewer took to the personal Twitter account of a game developer. The resulting arguments lead to the cancellation of a hotly-anticipated game in development, representing a huge loss to the community. In my opinion, the critic completely overstepped his professional bounds. Instead of reviewing the art, he was now reviewing the artist. This naturally enraged the developer, and lead to an explosive result. By comparison, on Facebook, one has to befriend another user in order to see them. This limits the criticism to the artist’s work, where it belongs.

Twitter not only fails to prevent such personal attack, but encourages it with its “Trending” format. Since any post that attracts a lot of attention can rise into the “Trending” column, what will become most popular are not well-spoken words which carry weight. Instead it’s the divisive ones which infuriate and inflame the community that reach notoriety, such as the “Cut for Beiber” Twitter trend. In essence, the site is built around the toxicity and conceit of its community, rather than its intelligence.

This question of intelligence and literacy brings me to the next factor - the 117 character post limit. I defy you to find a writer who can write an appropriately worded and thought out piece of writing in 117 characters. On top of this, it encourages a lazy reader. Anything which can’t be immediately understood within 117 characters is not worth reading. It is a medium which intentionally limits the debate, and when debate is limited, it is quickly reduced to insults. In fact, I believe 117 characters to be appropriate length only for abuse. An example is a case previously reported on The Record on a woman who was threatened over Twitter. There was no effective argument within a single post, and so the verbal assailant resorted to death threats. 

Finally, fatally, it encourages a sense of self-importance. A Twitter commenter is often much more interested in being heard than hearing, and frequently approaches an argument with the assumption that their opinion is inviolate. Their goal is to convince, not to be convinced - To teach, and not to go through the bother of learning. As writer Steven Fry once said of holding control of a column:

 “It makes you believe as that you deserve to be listened to!”

The effect of free publicity on Twitter has a similar effect, only with the added negative circumstances of a shortened post size, illiterate and/or disinterested community and access to a rival’s personal account. It is for this reason The Record has never had, and will never have a Twitter account. It is in my opinion a simple toy only for casual social use and not the tool of the debater, the politician or the critic. The sooner people understand this, the better.

(Opinion by J.Nolan)