You're viewing a single thread.
But why are they still supporting platforms run by billionaires? It's so easy to talk, theorize and posture as this revolutionary figure. But when it comes down to giving up one single convenience, people freak out. I don't know if I can take these people seriously.
She was one of the first high profile people on blue sky so it's not for not trying. Even this criticism though reads a bit like "You dislike capitalism and yet you participate in it." You can criticise what you partake in, why not?
That's not the same though? We can't stop participating in Capitalism right now. But we can easily stop using Twitter as far as I'm aware. You will not die if you stop using a website. I am not saying don't participate in social media of any kind. I am saying if you can't even stop using a website because it clashes with every value you have, then what chance is there that you'll give up something even greater for the sake of the greater good? Your analogy can be used to justify not making any kind of change ever because it inconveniences us.
As someone who does grassroots campaigning, I’m not sure she can. She needs to reach out wherever her audience is.
Yeah really. I can stop using Twitter because nobody gives a shit about me. My thoughts have 0 impact.
Companies and figures can't simply ignore the platform and remain competitive.
Ok I can accept that. I am not speaking about her personally but about many people on the revolutionary left who stay on there and spend 90 percent of the time complaining about what Elon Musk did or said. There's something wrong with this "politics of negativity", where the very apparent opposition you have to something is what ultimately fuels it. It's ironic in a sense. A post complaining about Elon Musk is ultimately creating money for Elon Musk. The apparent discourse and the latent effect are diametrically opposed.
You're correct in a moral sense although I agree entirely with other posters that politicians need to spread their message far and wide regardless of platform. I do not personally use Facebook or Twitter because I find them to be toxic, predatory, and privacy red flags in the case of Facebook. I rarely use Reddit out of principle when they screwed over Boost devs. The issue though is similar to why boycotts really just don't work for the left. Our power is in changing the systems at the government level, not at the endpoint or point of sale because almost definitionally we're not part of the 1% who make or break companies financially. Increasingly even together in unity that's still the case that our financial incentive offering is relatively minimal to the biggest companies if you ignore mass indignation as a stock value factor.
Twitter doesn't comply with hate speech laws on social media companies and is used as a tool by Elon to manipulate markets. These are problems addressed through giving teeth to the agencies and that's always going to be far more meaningful than the 4 cents you contribute in ad revenue before you max out views for the day.
Let's be honest though, with Twitter it's going to fail with or without government teeth around it. Elon has already started prepping the narrative to why his white nationalist pickme project is death spiraling.
politicians don't use social media for "convenience"
What kind of value does Twitter actually bring to a politician? I think we tend to overestimate how much Twitter does influence politics of any kind. People who will support a politician will support them and people who don't will not, Twitter will rarely sway anyone to a different position. Is it necessary to keep posting about every opinion you have constantly? If that's what being politically active is, then politics has devolved beyond repair.
Simple. Direct, uncensored, and provocative announcements directly to your constituents without needing to set up an event for each topic you want to discuss. More eyes and more control of your message. The most important thing is the number of eyes you have on your content. The more people that know and talk about it, the more likely the people who can vote for you will know about you.
When the news has segments covering tweets and Trump won in 2016 partially because of his social media presence, politicians have no choice but to use the platform until it loses the majority of it’s userbase. Or until it gets officially declared no better than 4chan by the mainstream media.
It sucks, but this is our reality
People who will support a politician will support them and people who don't will not, Twitter will rarely sway anyone to a different position.
I disagree with this. It's like when people say "why does Coca-Cola run ads, everyone knows them". Marketing matters. Awareness matters. Maybe it shouldn't but that's how it be.
I agree to an extent. I understand your analogy but I think there's a crucial difference between ads for a product and political positions. You can easily get someone to buy a product, but getting someone to change their views on, say, abortion is much harder. Political positions are tied to identities in ways that purchasing decisions are generally not. There may be some ways to sway some people who are on the fense about a given candidate or position, but I generally think this ability to change people is way overstated. People just keep posting their opinions over and over and think it's actually changing someone's mind, more often they are preaching to people who already agree with them.