Read on Twitter
Last night in a great debate with @TimandraHarknes, and @Nico_Macdonald, @Fox_Claire made a great defence of social media as a 'public square'. It's an interesting analogy but here's why I think we need to consider that deeply flawed: 1/
In a real ‘public square’ a stranger can arrive - no one knows who she/he is - and start to make some points. And through eloquence, wit and reason, win the audience over. The way people change their minds *and are forgiven* and everyone moves on...
...is actually one of the most remarkable things about human beings. Given the chance, people shed bad ideas like a snake sheds its skin.
This cannot happen in social media. It’ll never happen. So here’s what really happens on Twitter:
This cannot happen in social media. It’ll never happen. So here’s what really happens on Twitter:
Someone with 50 followers and no Blue Tick makes a reasonable point, and is promptly crushed by someone with 5000 followers.
Someone with 5000 followers is crushed by someone with 50,000 (and a BlueTick, yay!).
Someone with 5000 followers is crushed by someone with 50,000 (and a BlueTick, yay!).
And they are then crushed by someone with 500,000 followers. And so it goes. It isn't liberating all for the 'individual with no voice', it's institutionalised bullying.
Media people like us like to play the game - but we all know the game is rigged.
Media people like us like to play the game - but we all know the game is rigged.
You can find great debates on footie forums, under newspaper articles - almost anywhere electronic is better than Twitter.
Let's kill the idea we *need* a public performance space - especially now the owners have proven themselves keener censor ideas far more than Govts. /end
Let's kill the idea we *need* a public performance space - especially now the owners have proven themselves keener censor ideas far more than Govts. /end
