I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but: I honestly lose respect for online writers when I see them get deep into fights on Twitter. Making a statement re: demanding correction of a published falsehood, sure; it sucks, but sometimes you need that public attention to convince an unscrupulous publisher to cave. But chasing down dozens of rando…
I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but: I honestly lose respect for online writers when I see them get deep into fights on Twitter. Making a statement re: demanding correction of a published falsehood, sure; it sucks, but sometimes you need that public attention to convince an unscrupulous publisher to cave. But chasing down dozens of randos to go CAN YOU BACK UP THAT POINT? AREN'T YOU WRONG? DON'T YOU THINK IT'S CLEAR YOU'RE WRONG? CAN YOU CITE A SOURCE? is embarrassing. No, they can't cite a source. They have no interest in citing a source. Truthiness, not truth, is the point to them. I read a good newsletter post and I think, "This person thinks and speaks seriously and with consideration;" I see that kind of Twitter behavior, which Katie refers to as defending one's reputation, and I think, "Maybe this person is no more serious than the people they're getting into slapfights with."
I say this as someone without a Twitter account. The Twitter drama is free if I want to make an account and go see it for myself. The substantive reporting is what I get form Jesse's newsletter that I can't get on social media. When multiple newsletter posts in a row are entirely based on debunking idiotic quote tweets from unserious people, I get bored and irritated, because I don't really get the Twitter lingo anymore - it changes all the time - and a lot of the people quoted are only considered major figures on Twitter and aren't familiar to me.
I understand sometimes you have to quote a social media post in order to make a point, and I understand that if you're interested in any issue that touches modern journalism you have to put up with some Twitter-centric stories. That's fine! But good long-form writing stands on its own. There are plenty of people actually reading it. You will never change a single Twitter rando's mind, no matter how well you defend yourself. Every victory won on Twitter is hollow.
The problem with Twitter is that there’s no way to win by being right. Like if you disputed something and there was a big community notes battle where the concern was substantively adjudicated and all the people who were doing crazy stuff were noted and paid some repetutational price it would be different. It’s all sound and fury that unfortunately to Katie’s point has an outsized effect on journalists.
I agree with a lot of this, but I see the logical conclusion of this train of thought to be "...therefore, I should just make my twitter write-only", not "...therefore, I should cause the burning of the Library of Alexandria (but for Bussy Singal tweets)".
I was on Twitter for a long time – 2012 to 2020. I took several breaks, a couple more than six months long. There was no combination of settings and no level of Twitter hygiene that could prevent me from using it badly. If I let myself back on for any reason, within a few days, I would be just as addicted as I ever was. there’s no holding yourself to rules like “just don’t reply to people“ when your use of it is that compulsive.
I honestly don’t buy this idea that his Twitter archive is all that important. I don’t actually know how common it is for people to go digging back for good points they saw ages ago. Twitter is of the moment; it trades out its controversies every couple of days. I don’t think Jesse having his archive up on Twitter is going to do any more to convince people of his views or do any good work on the issues that his longer-form writing doesn’t do.
Strongly agree. And I think the idea of needing to “preserve the archive” is just another way to cling to the idea that one day you’ll be vindicated, one day you’ll show them they were wrong. But that won’t happen. Twitter is completely ephemeral except in that old dumb tweets can come back and get you in hot water (maybe not so much for the self-employed). Otherwise it’s ripples on a pool. Nobody will ever look back and care - YOU will not look back and care, because life is too short.
The articles, the episodes, they have some lasting value. The twitter slapfights mean nothing.
I am such a Twitter addict and it's really not good for me, and hearing those of you wiser than myself talking about getting away from it... are inspiring.
Honestly, when I quit it had nothing to do with willpower. There just kept coming points where it was making me so actively miserable, quitting was easy. When whatever else was making me sad and angry had passed, I'd come back, and it would be fine until something else made me sad and angry and it became so miserable I left again. Finally at some point I was sufficiently sad and angry, and Twitter was making me sufficiently miserable, that I nuked the account one day to the next - no announcement - and felt no desire whatsoever to reinstate when 30 days were up.
The most startling thing was that not a single friend whose woke-posting had been driving me to despair noticed I had left. I left Instagram at the same time, and no difference - not a single person noticed the void my posts had left, and in fact no one knew I was gone until I mentioned it offhand an entire year later. I don't think this is an indictment of my friends (who obviously didn't forget I existed IRL), I think it shows how meager the "social" aspect of Twitter actually is for a lot of people.
Yeah this is the exact journey of an addict. I’ve been there but with actual drugs. That’s why I think Jesse’s choice is right. The journey to quitting involves a bunch of relapses and some of those were when you were ready to quit for a little bit but you justified certain use cases because you didn’t have enough experience yet to realize that you were giving yourself a path back. I’m honestly concerned that he’s still reading some Twitter. Twitter is not meth, but it is a dopamine effect, and meth is also an admittedly more intense dopamine effect. I hope that the outs he’s leaving himself (reading Twitter; the supposedly automated Twitter account for advertising his posts) don’t end with him back on Twitter, because I think Twitter is really bad for him. I am worried they’re going to end up with him back on Twitter, however.
Yeah, I know for my part it would end with me back on Twitter. One of the best Twitter features ever was the one that would lock you out of continuing to read if you weren't logged into an account after looking at a small number of tweets per day. I'm at the point where I look at people's feeds very rarely and have no temptation to make an account at all anymore, but that feature stopped me from going back constantly after my account was nuked "just to see what people are saying."
Eventually, if you do that, you will see something you HAVE to respond to, it's just too awful, it's too wrong, it's too funny, it's too important, and then it's like... well, I have to be back for the entirety of the aftermath, I have to see this through to its conclusion, I have to know how the argument ends. But the scroll is infinite, the argument never ends, and there will be something equally awful/wrong/funny/important every 48 hours or so thereafter for as long as you keep looking.
I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but: I honestly lose respect for online writers when I see them get deep into fights on Twitter. Making a statement re: demanding correction of a published falsehood, sure; it sucks, but sometimes you need that public attention to convince an unscrupulous publisher to cave. But chasing down dozens of randos to go CAN YOU BACK UP THAT POINT? AREN'T YOU WRONG? DON'T YOU THINK IT'S CLEAR YOU'RE WRONG? CAN YOU CITE A SOURCE? is embarrassing. No, they can't cite a source. They have no interest in citing a source. Truthiness, not truth, is the point to them. I read a good newsletter post and I think, "This person thinks and speaks seriously and with consideration;" I see that kind of Twitter behavior, which Katie refers to as defending one's reputation, and I think, "Maybe this person is no more serious than the people they're getting into slapfights with."
I say this as someone without a Twitter account. The Twitter drama is free if I want to make an account and go see it for myself. The substantive reporting is what I get form Jesse's newsletter that I can't get on social media. When multiple newsletter posts in a row are entirely based on debunking idiotic quote tweets from unserious people, I get bored and irritated, because I don't really get the Twitter lingo anymore - it changes all the time - and a lot of the people quoted are only considered major figures on Twitter and aren't familiar to me.
I understand sometimes you have to quote a social media post in order to make a point, and I understand that if you're interested in any issue that touches modern journalism you have to put up with some Twitter-centric stories. That's fine! But good long-form writing stands on its own. There are plenty of people actually reading it. You will never change a single Twitter rando's mind, no matter how well you defend yourself. Every victory won on Twitter is hollow.
The problem with Twitter is that there’s no way to win by being right. Like if you disputed something and there was a big community notes battle where the concern was substantively adjudicated and all the people who were doing crazy stuff were noted and paid some repetutational price it would be different. It’s all sound and fury that unfortunately to Katie’s point has an outsized effect on journalists.
I agree with a lot of this, but I see the logical conclusion of this train of thought to be "...therefore, I should just make my twitter write-only", not "...therefore, I should cause the burning of the Library of Alexandria (but for Bussy Singal tweets)".
I was on Twitter for a long time – 2012 to 2020. I took several breaks, a couple more than six months long. There was no combination of settings and no level of Twitter hygiene that could prevent me from using it badly. If I let myself back on for any reason, within a few days, I would be just as addicted as I ever was. there’s no holding yourself to rules like “just don’t reply to people“ when your use of it is that compulsive.
I honestly don’t buy this idea that his Twitter archive is all that important. I don’t actually know how common it is for people to go digging back for good points they saw ages ago. Twitter is of the moment; it trades out its controversies every couple of days. I don’t think Jesse having his archive up on Twitter is going to do any more to convince people of his views or do any good work on the issues that his longer-form writing doesn’t do.
Strongly agree. And I think the idea of needing to “preserve the archive” is just another way to cling to the idea that one day you’ll be vindicated, one day you’ll show them they were wrong. But that won’t happen. Twitter is completely ephemeral except in that old dumb tweets can come back and get you in hot water (maybe not so much for the self-employed). Otherwise it’s ripples on a pool. Nobody will ever look back and care - YOU will not look back and care, because life is too short.
The articles, the episodes, they have some lasting value. The twitter slapfights mean nothing.
I am such a Twitter addict and it's really not good for me, and hearing those of you wiser than myself talking about getting away from it... are inspiring.
But, oh, am I weak.
Honestly, when I quit it had nothing to do with willpower. There just kept coming points where it was making me so actively miserable, quitting was easy. When whatever else was making me sad and angry had passed, I'd come back, and it would be fine until something else made me sad and angry and it became so miserable I left again. Finally at some point I was sufficiently sad and angry, and Twitter was making me sufficiently miserable, that I nuked the account one day to the next - no announcement - and felt no desire whatsoever to reinstate when 30 days were up.
The most startling thing was that not a single friend whose woke-posting had been driving me to despair noticed I had left. I left Instagram at the same time, and no difference - not a single person noticed the void my posts had left, and in fact no one knew I was gone until I mentioned it offhand an entire year later. I don't think this is an indictment of my friends (who obviously didn't forget I existed IRL), I think it shows how meager the "social" aspect of Twitter actually is for a lot of people.
It's crazy how well your first paragraph describes my experience with alcohol!
You get an immediate boost to a general sense of well being within days after eliminating the social media cesspool in your life.
Jesse did it right. Just delete the apps, delete the accounts, and give it a week.
You'll be like "woh. what a dumpster fire. I feel great."
Same. It's really hard to engage responsibly, I just had to delete my account in the end and walk away.
Yeah this is the exact journey of an addict. I’ve been there but with actual drugs. That’s why I think Jesse’s choice is right. The journey to quitting involves a bunch of relapses and some of those were when you were ready to quit for a little bit but you justified certain use cases because you didn’t have enough experience yet to realize that you were giving yourself a path back. I’m honestly concerned that he’s still reading some Twitter. Twitter is not meth, but it is a dopamine effect, and meth is also an admittedly more intense dopamine effect. I hope that the outs he’s leaving himself (reading Twitter; the supposedly automated Twitter account for advertising his posts) don’t end with him back on Twitter, because I think Twitter is really bad for him. I am worried they’re going to end up with him back on Twitter, however.
Yeah, I know for my part it would end with me back on Twitter. One of the best Twitter features ever was the one that would lock you out of continuing to read if you weren't logged into an account after looking at a small number of tweets per day. I'm at the point where I look at people's feeds very rarely and have no temptation to make an account at all anymore, but that feature stopped me from going back constantly after my account was nuked "just to see what people are saying."
Eventually, if you do that, you will see something you HAVE to respond to, it's just too awful, it's too wrong, it's too funny, it's too important, and then it's like... well, I have to be back for the entirety of the aftermath, I have to see this through to its conclusion, I have to know how the argument ends. But the scroll is infinite, the argument never ends, and there will be something equally awful/wrong/funny/important every 48 hours or so thereafter for as long as you keep looking.