My unsolicited, para-social take: TL;DR Jesse leaving twitter: Good Jesse deactivating his account: bad Jesse still checking twitter during his break: very bad. Giving Katie the keys: even worse. Jesse very clearly has a bad relationship with twitter where, him as a honest and ethical person doesn't stand a chance against people who don'…
Jesse still checking twitter during his break: very bad.
Giving Katie the keys: even worse.
Jesse very clearly has a bad relationship with twitter where, him as a honest and ethical person doesn't stand a chance against people who don't care about either of those things. This isn't cowardice or backing down from the fight, this is choosing to not enter a word fight when you know your opponent is using their fists. If they aren't going to follow logical arguments and discussion and instead continue to mudsling, there's little to be gained to continue to argue. There's an argument that the non-replying lurkers will become informed, but the negative affect on Jesse's mental health isn't worth the trade-off.
Deleting the account is a bad idea. I said this before when he first talked about purging old tweets, removing history only gives others the change to make up their own. Even if Jesse (rightly) doesn't want to engage with these fools, not having the easy-to-showcase historical tweets makes anyone having that argument on their behalf that much harder. I know Jesse has stated bluntly to not fight on his behalf, but it's inevitable for him and his work to come up in these discussions about GAC and without easy access to his tweet 'database', anyone looking to use his educated and informed takes comes up blank.
While I support giving someone the keys to the account as a better way to break the addiction, I don't think it should be Katie - not because I don't trust her to protect it, but having a co-host bear the burden will only need to unnecessary drama down the line if/when Jesse wants account access back. There's an argument to be made that having to grovel to Katie for access back to the account is a great deterrent, with Katie's penchant for mockery, but I just see it as a pain point that could potentially negatively affect things.
I do agree with Katie that twitter reputation is more important than it may seem. Yes, the streets of twitter are filled with lunacy, but anyone uninformed trying to get a read on someone/something is going to use it as a resource.
Hypothetically, someone new to this debate reads something by/about Jesse. They decide to dig into him to see if he's reliable. The first 3 google results is his Wikipedia, his personal website, and then his substack. While wikipedia is 'unbiased' it's not going to give you a read on his day-to-day and his self-published outfits will obviously paint him favorley.
The fourth link is the GLADD link. Someone reads that and, due to the gish gallop that the article is, they follow the links to twitter, maybe even searching for his name. All they will find is he used to have an account and the top rated/liked posts on the subjects are all about how he got a joke wrong and was, in their minds, rightly bullied off the platform.
When you remove your whole archive, anyone new to learn about Jesse will be mostly met with lies. While you can't ever convince the liars of the truth (because they don't care), having your twitter archive greatly aids in uninformed source becoming more informed on your actual self instead of the caricature painted by these bad faith twitter goons.
Reactivate the twitter, make it your bio that "I only respond to tweets on premium episodes of my podcast" and then follow through on that. They want the responses to their takes, make them pay, and stay stress free never feeling the need to respond to these people. Considering most of these people don't even have $5, they'll never know if you responded anyways :)
100% agree. Reactivate the account to save the archive. Make the statement in the bio. Hire someone to post your articles, or set up something (like zapier) to post articles without logging in. Make Twitter a one-way flow of putting stuff out there and do not interact at all. At all.
To me, that’s the best option. We keep the archive, Jesse doesn’t directly interact with Twitter *at all* anymore.
And Jesse, stop lurking on Twitter. Your dramatic exit says that you *know* you need to go cold turkey… so do it. I’m really looking forward to your post Twitter-brain content. Do not even peep at the crazies. You’ve got this.
I agree that would probably be the best option that would get him off twitter without creating the impression he'd been run off. BUT, do we think Jessie is capable of having a Twitter account and not using it? Or will he think "I'm sure it will be fine if I just have *one*" only to wake up six hours hours later with no recollection of events, a dozen unanswered messages from Katie and a suspiciously sore ass (figuratively speaking).
My unsolicited, para-social take:
TL;DR
Jesse leaving twitter: Good
Jesse deactivating his account: bad
Jesse still checking twitter during his break: very bad.
Giving Katie the keys: even worse.
Jesse very clearly has a bad relationship with twitter where, him as a honest and ethical person doesn't stand a chance against people who don't care about either of those things. This isn't cowardice or backing down from the fight, this is choosing to not enter a word fight when you know your opponent is using their fists. If they aren't going to follow logical arguments and discussion and instead continue to mudsling, there's little to be gained to continue to argue. There's an argument that the non-replying lurkers will become informed, but the negative affect on Jesse's mental health isn't worth the trade-off.
Deleting the account is a bad idea. I said this before when he first talked about purging old tweets, removing history only gives others the change to make up their own. Even if Jesse (rightly) doesn't want to engage with these fools, not having the easy-to-showcase historical tweets makes anyone having that argument on their behalf that much harder. I know Jesse has stated bluntly to not fight on his behalf, but it's inevitable for him and his work to come up in these discussions about GAC and without easy access to his tweet 'database', anyone looking to use his educated and informed takes comes up blank.
While I support giving someone the keys to the account as a better way to break the addiction, I don't think it should be Katie - not because I don't trust her to protect it, but having a co-host bear the burden will only need to unnecessary drama down the line if/when Jesse wants account access back. There's an argument to be made that having to grovel to Katie for access back to the account is a great deterrent, with Katie's penchant for mockery, but I just see it as a pain point that could potentially negatively affect things.
I do agree with Katie that twitter reputation is more important than it may seem. Yes, the streets of twitter are filled with lunacy, but anyone uninformed trying to get a read on someone/something is going to use it as a resource.
Hypothetically, someone new to this debate reads something by/about Jesse. They decide to dig into him to see if he's reliable. The first 3 google results is his Wikipedia, his personal website, and then his substack. While wikipedia is 'unbiased' it's not going to give you a read on his day-to-day and his self-published outfits will obviously paint him favorley.
The fourth link is the GLADD link. Someone reads that and, due to the gish gallop that the article is, they follow the links to twitter, maybe even searching for his name. All they will find is he used to have an account and the top rated/liked posts on the subjects are all about how he got a joke wrong and was, in their minds, rightly bullied off the platform.
When you remove your whole archive, anyone new to learn about Jesse will be mostly met with lies. While you can't ever convince the liars of the truth (because they don't care), having your twitter archive greatly aids in uninformed source becoming more informed on your actual self instead of the caricature painted by these bad faith twitter goons.
Reactivate the twitter, make it your bio that "I only respond to tweets on premium episodes of my podcast" and then follow through on that. They want the responses to their takes, make them pay, and stay stress free never feeling the need to respond to these people. Considering most of these people don't even have $5, they'll never know if you responded anyways :)
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
Good points. He should give the keys to his brother.
100% agree. Reactivate the account to save the archive. Make the statement in the bio. Hire someone to post your articles, or set up something (like zapier) to post articles without logging in. Make Twitter a one-way flow of putting stuff out there and do not interact at all. At all.
To me, that’s the best option. We keep the archive, Jesse doesn’t directly interact with Twitter *at all* anymore.
And Jesse, stop lurking on Twitter. Your dramatic exit says that you *know* you need to go cold turkey… so do it. I’m really looking forward to your post Twitter-brain content. Do not even peep at the crazies. You’ve got this.
100%, irrefutable best take on the matter.
I agree that would probably be the best option that would get him off twitter without creating the impression he'd been run off. BUT, do we think Jessie is capable of having a Twitter account and not using it? Or will he think "I'm sure it will be fine if I just have *one*" only to wake up six hours hours later with no recollection of events, a dozen unanswered messages from Katie and a suspiciously sore ass (figuratively speaking).
He is. Of course he is. (If he stops lurking.)
Best take I’ve seen.
This is what I was thinking too.