Twitter is not dead but has it outlived its essential purpose?
• State of social media site is the biggest story in tech but most of world arguably doesn’t care
Saying you’re on Twitter for the insight is like saying you used to read Playboy for the articles. It is in there, for sure, but to find it you have to look past all the drama, fights, memes and distractions.
Honestly, I’m there for both. I think the mix is the magic; it’s the secret sauce. It is what keeps us on the platform, endlessly refreshing for all the latest updates.
Take this week, for example: my timeline the past few days has been equal parts searing commentary and home-grown scandals, with posts ping-ponging between smart takes on the state of Twitter Co and hilarious jokes about misappropriated Tupperware.
If you don’t get that last reference this column probably isn’t for you, and that’s OK. The funny thing is that the state of Twitter is the biggest story in tech right now, but most of the world arguably doesn’t care.
Twitter’s user numbers — about 238-million — are all over the map since Elon Musk’s takeover. Whether they’re trending down as users leave in droves (as some outlets are reporting), or up so much that the servers might “melt” (as Musk joked in a tweet early on Tuesday), depends on what source you’re reading and what time of day you’re reading it.
Either way, that’s barely a patch on Facebook’s 2.93-billion or Instagram’s 1.4-billion. YouTube, WhatsApp, TikTok and WeChat all have 1-billion or more monthly active users. It is clear then that Twitter punches far above its weight, influencing the zeitgeist and media output, nurturing narratives, big ideas and cultural goods that make their way through other platforms and publications directly and indirectly.
A decade ago not being on Twitter often meant missing out on a particularly public sphere of life. For journalists, news would break on Twitter, and you could access eyewitnesses through a direct message.
For politicians, you had your own means of publication, one in your control, where you could craft your message and skip the middleman.
The lines were clearer. Facebook was for weddings and graduations. LinkedIn was about your work history. Instagram was salads and sunsets. Comparatively, Twitter felt like a live wire. It was vital and frenetic, and exciting.
Today, this is all a jumble. I get as many cat videos on TikTok as I get viral videos on Reddit. Breaking news reaches me on the Facebook feed as often as it does anywhere else, and if content is good enough, it will find you. Repeatedly. Like twoweek-old Tiktok trends flooding Instagram’s Reels.
We are so networked, so marinated in persistent social media, that Twitter’s essential purpose may be diluted. And if you aren’t a newsie or officebearer — hell, even if you are —I would argue that the fact of the existence of a digital town square doesn’t actually demand your attendance.
DECENTRALISATION
If I were to pin this moment in digital history to anything, I would say it has done more for ushering in general knowledge of decentralisation than anything that has come before.
Decentralisation isn’t just beloved by your friendly neighbourhood bitcoin bro, though it is key there too. It is a principle usually considered to be core to the conceptualisation of Web 3, what people consider the next iteration of what we colloquially call “the internet ”— tokenised, blockchain-based and decentralised.
In contrast to the concentration of “big tech” that we’ve seen the in the past decade or so, a decentralised web (and social) means smaller, independent, networked online spaces that some believe will “democratise” knowledge and access, give power back to people. Critics, however, caution that decentralised spaces — and yes, we already have plenty — are the Wild West of the internet.
The obvious downside to decentralised social networks is that they are fragmented in nature, making them prone to becoming echo chambers. In the good ones, this makes for peaceful, respectful platforms.
Those of us exploring decentralised Twitter-alternative Mastodon are finding this out first hand this week. I chose a “writing” server and my local timeline is a breath of fresh air to this Twitter user.
Imagine, a social platform where people share jokes and updates and thoughts, without courting rage and death threats. There’s some questionable poetry, but that’s not unheard of in any social network.
In the bad ones, however, fragmentation can radicalise people further, or give users the idea that their extreme, unsubstantiated views are the default and true. This emboldens dangerous people, like the January 6 insurgents who stormed the US Capitol building in 2021.
In addition to radicalisation, there is the inscrutability of decentralised and dark social. These tools are largely invisible to those who track the ugly businesses of child sexual abuse imagery, trafficking, and terrorism. This is why groups such as Tech Against Terrorism warn us that decentralised networks are favourites of terror cells.
What does that mean practically? Facebook is centralised in ownership and structure, but the user experience can feel quite
I WOULD ARGUE THE FACT OF THE EXISTENCE OF A DIGITAL TOWN SQUARE DOESN’T ACTUALLY DEMAND YOUR ATTENDANCE
fragmented — especially if your friend group is small and/or homogeneous. But because it is centralised, it is — at least in theory — governed by a content moderation policy, and remains largely scrutable, run by a single corporate entity that can be expected to abide by regional rules and laws. Not so with decentralisation. So no, decentralised social isn’t a simple solution to a problem. It’s the flavour of the month which may or may not be the future.
Just like disco and Nietzsche’s God, Twitter isn’t dead. It is losing advertisers, staff and credibility, but triage is ongoing. Its relevance to the current world is in flux. Musk likes to think he is at the forefront of global change. This time he is probably right, but not in the way he means it.