I enjoyed reading this! I want to stick up for other humans a bit. I don’t think Twitter exposes what we really are, always. I think it promotes content which makes people scared, and encourages responses that make other people scared. It tells us that the way to respond to threat is with cruelty and anger, then feeds off the loop it creates. But I don’t think thr result reveals the totality of humanity, in the same way that forcing dogs to tear each other apart in fear doesn’t reveal the totality of dogs. It reveals a society where creatures live in torture and distress, and behind the ugliness there is a desperate need for compassion.
There’s always the premise that we can rise above Twitter and how it works; maybe some people can. But I can’t— I go on there to share a drawing of a gnome and before long am shouting very unpleasant things about something that doesn’t matter at all.
I think it’s engineered so that it does this to us. It is able to sidestep will and self-control, and access this raw centre of anger and fear. A bull might admit in its private moments that a red rag was like Twitter to a human. The only way to get better is to get away.
The idea that we might not actually be able to beat Twitter through rationality or reason, and might just have to stay clear of it, is one that is very unpopular. I think the world is very insistent that we can resist these algorithms that have been refined to zoom past all our defences. But I think there’s a point where that belief hurts others and hurts ourselves, and in the end there are more important things than pride and belief in the will. So in the end I just thought I should stay well away.
really appreciated the nuance of this article Heather,
it came along just at the right time as I'm reading "What's our Problem" (Tim Urban),
and reflecting myself on why discussion online seems increasingly polarized and offense is so easily taken.
Sometimes it seems like today's society is one big echo chamber.
There are fewer fact-based opinions left to be found on anything much, political or otherwise.
Everyone seems afraid to voice their opinion,
for fear of being attacked
With both left and right-wing culture trending towards extreme viewpoints.
There's no room for balanced, or refined viewpoints in the centre,
Only simple narratives with a clear story,
Hero and villain.
I've been trying to dive into why....
There's no room for balanced, or refined viewpoints in the centre,
Only simple narratives with a clear story,
Hero and villain.
Extreme personalities like Trump are just artefacts of culture and extreme tribalism fueled by social media creating a biased reality.
The endgame is opposing viewpoints on any matter.
We are in a world of red Vs blue, worse, us Vs them.
But the real world is complex with complex opinions.
The loss of the "middle", of the ability to reason, question and debate is the slow demise of free speech, which leads to restriction of thought through societal pressure.
In short, people should stop jumping to opinions because they read a 5s clickbait article, and practice saying
"don't know" or even "don't care"
My policy is to try not have an opinion unless it's something I know about.
There's so much fake news and clickbait out there, it's easy to form an opinion based on nothing but bias and speculation, then dig yourself in by believing in something you you only see one side of through the prism of a social feed.
For me "I don't know / care" applies to about 95% of most info I see during the day.
I think it's because negative news has anymore emotional impact than positive because humans are biased to fear loss more than enjoy gains.
So social algos push negative threads, negative politics etc.
I'm hoping the next generation are more guarded and adjust & learn to modulate online behaviour to counteract the algo.
Otherwise I guess democratic society is doomed to a weird kind of hypercharged tribalism
for me, hearing opposing viewpoints is not about protection,
exposing myself to other opinions is the only way to stay open and aware.
If we view opposing opinions only as an opportunity to defend our own viewpoints then we're already approaching someone with a closed mind, and lumping them into a "us Vs them" scenario where everything is polarised.
In that scenario attacking instead of discussing is it's own form of pushing people into silence.
The internet seems to breed this form of "shout each other down" one sided arguments, instead of people actually soaking up new viewpoints or perspectives,
Which may have been possible in a face to face conversation
But we're not morally obligated to voice those opinions.
I was once labelled as "privileged" just for saying I try not to watch the news.
I think of myself as very liberal, yet I've been attacked by other liberals, if I call out that their sources are little more than clickbait.
To the right,
your branded "a sympathizer".
and to left "you're privileged".
That's an easier narrative than considering that maybe,
just maybe,
it's complicated.
Free speech must be allowed, even the speech we disagree with.
If I came across a racist I would simultaneously argue with them about racism,
Whilst simultaneously supporting their right to voice their distasteful opinions
These two viewpoints are not contradictory.
The issue I have with social fundamentalism (and this happens in both left and right ) is attempts to prevent or shut down open discussion.
Not all discussion about racism is racism
Not all those who disagree on fine points around transgender issues are transphobic
These are complex issues across spectrums of opinion on ethics, morality, politics etc.
But increasingly, to even ask questions around a "hot topic" is is taken as a sign of disagreement, and perceived as a declaration that you are vehemently against that viewpoint,
even if your overall stance is actually in agreement.
It's the death of free speech.
If we can't discuss the nuances, without being attacked,
Then how can we define what is a reasonable viewpoint, and what is an extreme viewpoint?
Very quickly the more balanced viewpoints stop being heard entirely, because it's just not worth it to argue with lower rung or extreme opinions.
And pretty soon all you hear are the extreme opinions shouting
So how can we have an adult conversation about it?
I think it's important to have free and open speech as speech dictates thought.
but when even the most benign topics can lead to a polarised and heated debate in this "us Vs them" culture, It can be exhausting.
I try share my honest opinions,
to be genuine
and to contribute to open debate whenever I can.
But often entering a conversation with a reasoned, nuanced or "middle" opinion
Will only earn you attack from both sides.
So sometimes it's better just to keep my opinions to myself.
What do you think, do you feel safe voicing your opinion on social or prefer to keep it to yourself?
This is excellent writing and insight. And really interesting to see how social media fragments and divides us, and I agree with the ridiculousness of fighting against those who we probably agree with, and if we don't - does it really matter? Because of the fragmentary nature of our lives on social media there is so little space to get deep into a critique, to avoid an argument... this is where Substack does work in my opinion, as demonstrated here. Anyway, it's good to be introduced to your work and your thoughts and good luck with the publication!
Great piece Heather. Have you tried to delete your twitter account? I tried a couple of weeks ago but I can only suspend it, then I must resist the temptation of logging in for 30 days and then it will be deleted. It's infuriating!
I'm a little reluctant to delete my account as I have a book coming out soon, and do have 10k followers. I actually don't feel I need to as I feel zero compulsion to go on there any more, so it's just a marketing tool for me now. I will absolutely not be signing up for the replacements any time soon though: I want the freedom!!
Enjoyed reading this Heather. Appreciated the background info, great research!
Thank you, Janet!
I enjoyed reading this! I want to stick up for other humans a bit. I don’t think Twitter exposes what we really are, always. I think it promotes content which makes people scared, and encourages responses that make other people scared. It tells us that the way to respond to threat is with cruelty and anger, then feeds off the loop it creates. But I don’t think thr result reveals the totality of humanity, in the same way that forcing dogs to tear each other apart in fear doesn’t reveal the totality of dogs. It reveals a society where creatures live in torture and distress, and behind the ugliness there is a desperate need for compassion.
There’s always the premise that we can rise above Twitter and how it works; maybe some people can. But I can’t— I go on there to share a drawing of a gnome and before long am shouting very unpleasant things about something that doesn’t matter at all.
I think it’s engineered so that it does this to us. It is able to sidestep will and self-control, and access this raw centre of anger and fear. A bull might admit in its private moments that a red rag was like Twitter to a human. The only way to get better is to get away.
The idea that we might not actually be able to beat Twitter through rationality or reason, and might just have to stay clear of it, is one that is very unpopular. I think the world is very insistent that we can resist these algorithms that have been refined to zoom past all our defences. But I think there’s a point where that belief hurts others and hurts ourselves, and in the end there are more important things than pride and belief in the will. So in the end I just thought I should stay well away.
I absolutely agree that its intention is to draw out the worst. Ire draws more engagement than generosity!
really appreciated the nuance of this article Heather,
it came along just at the right time as I'm reading "What's our Problem" (Tim Urban),
and reflecting myself on why discussion online seems increasingly polarized and offense is so easily taken.
Sometimes it seems like today's society is one big echo chamber.
There are fewer fact-based opinions left to be found on anything much, political or otherwise.
Everyone seems afraid to voice their opinion,
for fear of being attacked
With both left and right-wing culture trending towards extreme viewpoints.
There's no room for balanced, or refined viewpoints in the centre,
Only simple narratives with a clear story,
Hero and villain.
I've been trying to dive into why....
There's no room for balanced, or refined viewpoints in the centre,
Only simple narratives with a clear story,
Hero and villain.
Extreme personalities like Trump are just artefacts of culture and extreme tribalism fueled by social media creating a biased reality.
The endgame is opposing viewpoints on any matter.
We are in a world of red Vs blue, worse, us Vs them.
But the real world is complex with complex opinions.
The loss of the "middle", of the ability to reason, question and debate is the slow demise of free speech, which leads to restriction of thought through societal pressure.
In short, people should stop jumping to opinions because they read a 5s clickbait article, and practice saying
"don't know" or even "don't care"
My policy is to try not have an opinion unless it's something I know about.
There's so much fake news and clickbait out there, it's easy to form an opinion based on nothing but bias and speculation, then dig yourself in by believing in something you you only see one side of through the prism of a social feed.
For me "I don't know / care" applies to about 95% of most info I see during the day.
I think it's because negative news has anymore emotional impact than positive because humans are biased to fear loss more than enjoy gains.
So social algos push negative threads, negative politics etc.
I'm hoping the next generation are more guarded and adjust & learn to modulate online behaviour to counteract the algo.
Otherwise I guess democratic society is doomed to a weird kind of hypercharged tribalism
for me, hearing opposing viewpoints is not about protection,
exposing myself to other opinions is the only way to stay open and aware.
If we view opposing opinions only as an opportunity to defend our own viewpoints then we're already approaching someone with a closed mind, and lumping them into a "us Vs them" scenario where everything is polarised.
In that scenario attacking instead of discussing is it's own form of pushing people into silence.
The internet seems to breed this form of "shout each other down" one sided arguments, instead of people actually soaking up new viewpoints or perspectives,
Which may have been possible in a face to face conversation
But we're not morally obligated to voice those opinions.
I was once labelled as "privileged" just for saying I try not to watch the news.
I think of myself as very liberal, yet I've been attacked by other liberals, if I call out that their sources are little more than clickbait.
To the right,
your branded "a sympathizer".
and to left "you're privileged".
That's an easier narrative than considering that maybe,
just maybe,
it's complicated.
Free speech must be allowed, even the speech we disagree with.
If I came across a racist I would simultaneously argue with them about racism,
Whilst simultaneously supporting their right to voice their distasteful opinions
These two viewpoints are not contradictory.
The issue I have with social fundamentalism (and this happens in both left and right ) is attempts to prevent or shut down open discussion.
Not all discussion about racism is racism
Not all those who disagree on fine points around transgender issues are transphobic
These are complex issues across spectrums of opinion on ethics, morality, politics etc.
But increasingly, to even ask questions around a "hot topic" is is taken as a sign of disagreement, and perceived as a declaration that you are vehemently against that viewpoint,
even if your overall stance is actually in agreement.
It's the death of free speech.
If we can't discuss the nuances, without being attacked,
Then how can we define what is a reasonable viewpoint, and what is an extreme viewpoint?
Very quickly the more balanced viewpoints stop being heard entirely, because it's just not worth it to argue with lower rung or extreme opinions.
And pretty soon all you hear are the extreme opinions shouting
So how can we have an adult conversation about it?
I think it's important to have free and open speech as speech dictates thought.
but when even the most benign topics can lead to a polarised and heated debate in this "us Vs them" culture, It can be exhausting.
I try share my honest opinions,
to be genuine
and to contribute to open debate whenever I can.
But often entering a conversation with a reasoned, nuanced or "middle" opinion
Will only earn you attack from both sides.
So sometimes it's better just to keep my opinions to myself.
What do you think, do you feel safe voicing your opinion on social or prefer to keep it to yourself?
This is excellent writing and insight. And really interesting to see how social media fragments and divides us, and I agree with the ridiculousness of fighting against those who we probably agree with, and if we don't - does it really matter? Because of the fragmentary nature of our lives on social media there is so little space to get deep into a critique, to avoid an argument... this is where Substack does work in my opinion, as demonstrated here. Anyway, it's good to be introduced to your work and your thoughts and good luck with the publication!
Thanks for the lovely comments, Lily!
Great piece Heather. Have you tried to delete your twitter account? I tried a couple of weeks ago but I can only suspend it, then I must resist the temptation of logging in for 30 days and then it will be deleted. It's infuriating!
I'm a little reluctant to delete my account as I have a book coming out soon, and do have 10k followers. I actually don't feel I need to as I feel zero compulsion to go on there any more, so it's just a marketing tool for me now. I will absolutely not be signing up for the replacements any time soon though: I want the freedom!!