@Instapundit and Twitter, The “Crystal Meth of Social Media”

Whether you love or hate Tennessee lawprof Glenn Reynolds, best known as Instapundit, who has been an unabashed conservative voice on the internets throughout a period when academia was gushing progressivism, there are a few things that can’t be denied. First, that he’s shown the fortitude of speaking against the tide. As a result, Glenn collected a huge following, because not everyone feels compelled to select their own personal pronouns.

Second, he knows social media. He knows its power. He knows its failings. He knows the pretense it instills in its shallow fans that they are passionate advocates when they’re doing nothing more than preaching to their choir or enjoying a cute little circle jerk. Spend enough time online, and establish enough credibility to have people hear what you have to say and you learn things. You can’t help it.

And boy, has Glenn learned things.

SO WHAT I’VE DONE WITH TWITTER is just to log out for now. The robo-tweets of InstaPundit content will continue, at least for a while. I may take down the widget on the sidebar, eventually. I haven’t moved to Gab, and I’m not sure whether I will or not. Basically, there are two problems with Twitter for me. One is that they don’t support their users — they pretty clearly suspend, ban, etc. using a political double standard even though they claim they don’t.

In the past few months, blue checks have appeared next to twitter names of inconsequence. No one is trying to steal their identity because no one gives a damn that they exist. They don’t have significant followings. They aren’t “important” in the way that compels some sort of official recognition. They do, however, have one thing in common. They are deeply progressive.

Others, despite huge followings, have either lost their blue check or been disappeared altogether. Think Milo and Robert Stacy McCain. Or think Reynolds, who was suspended from twitter for a twit that was deemed inappropriate, despite the fact that @Instapundit has over 70,000 followers.

Maybe a less extreme example, like my pal Ken White @Popehat, works, with over 50,000 followers but no blue check. Mary Anne Franks gets an official blue check, with her 3600 followers. So does The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, with its 2000 followers.

But does any of this matter, or have we become so caught up in the game of social media that we begin to believe it’s a thing because, well, we just believe?

But the other problem with Twitter is that it’s the crystal meth of social media: Addictive, but unsatisfying. I’ve been spending a lot of time on it even though it doesn’t make me any money, and even though I kind of doubt it has much of an impact on anything. As I said a while back: “I think Twitter is overrated. It’s a good way to chatter with the chattering classes, but (1) it doesn’t drive traffic; (2) its impact outside the chattering classes is basically nil; and (3) it encourages people to think they’re being ‘activists’ when they’re really just tweeting to a few hundred people.”

Glenn has twitted a lot. He’s got over 580,000 twits under his belt. By any calculation, that’s a lot of twits. And so he rules the world? Not exactly.

That I’ve posted over 580,000 tweets in spite of saying that suggests to me that I’m not very good at following my own advice. Add to that the exposure to Justine-Sacco type shamestorms on a platform you don’t control, and I don’t see why I should keep working for them for free. And on that point, if I, a tenured professor whose university just admitted that his tweets are protected by the First Amendment, have concerns about this, I have to wonder why anyone whose job is less secure would stay on Twitter.

Meet one harsh reality that the social media lovers fail to grasp. Without people using twitter, it’s got nothing. The users’ twits are the merchandise twitter sells. It’s just a platform. If no one uses it, it disappears because it doesn’t create anything. It’s just a place for other people to create.

And people do. Smart people will twit smart things. Stupid and crazy people will twit what they will. There is a premium for people who twit things that confirm other people’s bias, and validate lonely people’s feelings that they aren’t so alone.

What people appear to like about twitter, with its 140 characters, is that it’s short and simple enough that anyone can do it. While it takes discipline to do it well, it fails miserably as a platform for any serious discussion. And just because some doofus can @ twit anyone on the platform doesn’t mean anyone gives a damn they exist. New people never seem to grasp this, that they aren’t entitled to demand other twitterers’ attention.

Not that it matters. The twit that outrages you this moment disappears the next, buried in the stream of new twits with cute cat pics or outrageous police violence.

When SJ started, blogs were in fashion, and there were a lot of them and more coming online daily. Most sucked, because most of you can’t write worth a damn and have even less capacity for thinking. But most are gone. Some people burned out. Some people came to the realization that they weren’t accomplishing their goals, whether to influence thought or change or to make themselves rich and famous.

Maybe none of this matters. Maybe social media, not just twitter, is our crystal meth, “Addictive, but unsatisfying.” Maybe the upshot of all this is that we’ve wasted tons of money and millions of hours of time for nothing more than the opportunity to pretend we’re busy doing something useful.

I’ve been keeping a watchful eye on the twitters of late, and noticed a curious phenomenon: Twit something that vaguely support one political agenda and you get a bunch of new followers. Twit something that vaguely support the alternative agenda and they flee like rats. Try to make a point on the twitters that requires a more nuanced understanding and nobody has a clue what you’re trying to say. In the end, nobody’s mind has been enlightened or changed. Why bother? It kills time and can occasionally be fun, but that’s all there is.

@Instapundit realized this a while back, but still played the game for shits and giggles. When it stopped being fun, and had an impact on his real world, he said “screw it.” No matter whether you love or hate Glenn, you will know less because of his absence. But social media doesn’t care, as long as there are twits on the screen, no matter how worthless or pointless they are in the long run.


Discover more from Simple Justice

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

9 thoughts on “@Instapundit and Twitter, The “Crystal Meth of Social Media”

  1. Charles A. Wells

    Re: “That I’ve posted over 580,000 tweets…”

    That’s almost 160 twits per day, 365 days per year, for the entire 10 years Twitter has been in existence. Tenured law professors must have a lot of free time.

    1. Mike

      When you consider that a majority of those tweets are robo-tweets promoting articles on his news aggregation site, then not so much.

  2. losingtrader

    Maybe none of this matters. Maybe social media, not just twitter, is our crystal meth, “Addictive, but unsatisfying”

    If it weren’t for the fact I have to have a Twitter account to get certain very good product/service discounts , it would be of no use other than watching Martin Shkreli threaten to beat up Captain America and destroy the Wu-Tang clan album , while offering the right to punch him in the face to the highest bidder…..for the children, of course.

  3. Maz

    “In the past few months, blue checks have appeared next to twitter names of inconsequence.”

    Are you sure that reflects Twitter’s bias or merely who feels their thoughts are important enough to request verified status?

Comments are closed.