Why Do We Tweet?

We've different aims for our social media activity: here are six of them.

My own experiences have led me to set out below a simple categorisation of some different Aims for social media activity and activism. One person’s post, like or re-post may have quite different Aims to someone else’s post, like or re-post. The hidden cross-purposes may add extra frustrations.

Aim #0 — A newsfeed.

Users use their social media passively as a basic news feed to read and view for information. Liking a post or following someone else counts as active use.

Note: As the newspapers we choose to read always have, a social media platform may control what gets published. Otherwise, apart from the watching algorithms, users can read or view what they like in private. They are at least free to think their own thoughts. Social media allows the surveillance of a Spanish Inquisition who policed overt behaviour, but no more than that. The greater thought-policing of the Stasi isn’t possible if a user sticks to Aim #0. The happy photo above shows a more sociable way to share what’s on your device.

To be more active enables more mind-reading and activist policing of a user’s thoughts. Not enough approvable tweets and who you follow may be taken down and used in evidence against you in the world of informal online citizens justice. Our actual laws, but not our present online culture, allow a wide natural range of expression, slurs, mistakes, lies, misunderstandings, amendments and apologies. Criticism, robust debate and protest are also part of a healthy culture if people aren’t bullied into it. The law is managed by authorised officials guided by codes and rules. Online, thanks to our basic culture of free expression, any citizen who wants to can drive the culture over the top all the way to kangaroo courts witih power to cancel people, careers and lives. Aim #0 is safest: the equivalent of getting and reading your old daily newspaper.

Five reasons follow for being more active than Aim #0 on social media — that is posting, likes or re-posting:

Aim #1 — To change the world.

To change the world by yourself and/or join a movement to change the world.

Note: Even professional campaigners don’t see social media by itself as the main or effective way to change a culture or a system. So Aim #1 is unrealistic. It is grandiose, or collectively grandiose (if you’re part of a movement), to believe you’re achieving Aim #1 in your social media activism.

Aim #2 — To debate.

To write persuasively in order to lead or shape a debate or to critique other views in a debate.

Note: Until a debate is more settled, for example having produced an agreed policy platform, Aim #2 aims to prepare for, but not yet actually settle on, what change is needed for the world. Debate leads to consensus before policy and action. Ideally done with skilful principled reason, objective evidence, engaged discussion and robust debate (PROEEDRD), Aim #2 is for an open public version of constructive academic or professional debate or objective investigative journalism maybe. But, of course, many on social media are not skilled at PROEEDRD. So social media is often inevitably more like Hyde Park Corner as loud abuse and heckling turn it into a shouting match or worse. In a world that’s lost effective academia, institutions and journalism, Aim #2 gives us all a chance to observe and learn from those skilled enough at PROEEDRD as they produce and publish quality debate and work. Aim #2 is realistic. It’s grandiose if you think you’re doing more than preparing to change the world.

Aim #3 — To attack others.

To attack, shame, libel, or denigrate the people and views you don’t agree with in the hope of intimidating, silencing or erasing them.

Note: Aim #3 is negative and un-constructive. The belief seems to be that something better will emerge without any plans if everything that exists so far is destroyed and de-constructed. Aim #3 often deploys anything that works against PROEEDRD. Commonly, ad hominem attacks replace a focus on the content of the debate. It is a highly effective speedy if miserable strategy. In effect it is a powerful social media version of shouting people down in a meeting whose views you don’t like. It takes only a few online activists to drown out or cancel anyone they want to target. Of course Aim #3 derails Aim #2 to achieve the desired result: ie “No Debate” or a pretence of debate until one party imperiously declares the other wrong with added allegations and epithets. Unless Aim #3 is just a personal vendetta, it will be driven by grandiose and collectively grandiose Aims to change the world.

Aim #4 — To support others.

To show support for those doing the hard work of Aim #2 — especially those who have been hounded by Aim #3 and prevented from contributing — in order to build at least a fair balance of views if not a robust debate.

Note: In a polarised debate on social media, we find exactly the same allegations of unfairness on both sides. Both sides claim to be unfunded, trolled and hounded and not have had a fair hearing or press. Of course Aim #4 as well as Aim #2 are attacked by Aim #3 . There are other ways to show your positive support for the hard workers and for those hounded. Aim #4 is realistic and helps PROEEDRD. It is not grandiose.

Aim #5 — To be seen by a few

Some aim only to be seen in public by a particular few who have mistaken or do not support a user’s posts and views. This may be needed especially with those you love or work with to clarify the misunderstood views and explain what they actually are, or what they are not.

Note: Being only for a very small or family audience makes Aim #5 the least grandiose or collectively grandiose of the active Aims. Re-posting with added comments can help the clarification. Even then, those intent on targeted witch-hunts that lead to nasty punishments, might still not accept the clarification. As in Life of Brian, anyone at all who says “Jehovah” will be gleefully stoned whatever explanation they give.

Setting out these six categories of Aims for social media activity shows up the way reasoned debate online struggles in the middle as the polarised activists on all sides treat each other as sacred martyrs versus evil witches. I hope the Aims make sense and can help us all do better. Comments and improvements are welcome. Thanks.

Photo by Ali Mkumbwa on Unsplash