This article isn’t primarily focused on Bluesky, but rather, it presents an argument in favor of maintaining a presence on Twitter, despite its shortcomings. The author acknowledges that Twitter has been somewhat hijacked by negative elements but advocates for continued engagement. The rationale is simple: indisputably Twitter represents the most influential digital public forum in our world. According to a 2021 survey by Pew Research, Twitter reached nearly 25% of the U.S. population. By 2024, post acquisition, the usage stood at 21%. Mirroring this statistical insight, Twitter is unrivaled as a platform where politicians, scholars, top-notch business executives, and celebrities can interact.
In the influential city of Washington, D.C., Twitter maintains its status as a potent tool for budding policy thinkers to draw attention to their work. The route from sharing thoughts to impacting policy seems to be thriving. Yet, here’s the reality check regarding this ‘influential public square’: it’s an uphill battle trying to reclaim a platform that is under the ownership and direction of someone who diametrically opposes your values. It’s practically impossible to regain control over something you never really had to begin with.
The heart of the argument centers around what is termed the ‘politics of hygiene’. Yet, this entire claim presents a false dyad. The real decision to make isn’t whether to strive for perfect conditions or practicality. Rather, the question to ask is where one can truly make a difference. Why would you stay on a platform designed to minimize your voice and magnify the discourse of extremists? Persisting on such a platform isn’t sensibility but rather a form of self-punishment.
The misunderstanding about the power dynamics at play on these platforms is blatant. Attaining success on social media platforms necessitates building communities. However, forming a community becomes impossible when someone else controls the rules of engagement. The platform in question wasn’t purchased in defense of ‘free speech’ or preservation of a ‘public square’. Rather, the new owner desired to mold it to reflect his philosophy.
Repeated attempts to harp on the same point reveals the misunderstanding of the balance of power on social media. Success hinges on constructing communities, and community building becomes an arduous task when all authority over its functioning is vested elsewhere. The acquisition of Twitter had a very specific motive – a reconstruction in line with the buyer’s aspirations; it was never about championing ‘free speech’ or advocating the sanctity of ‘the public square’.
This misguided approach upholds a larger issue which plagues our perspective of the internet- a sense of powerless acceptance. Somewhere along the line, we have lost sight of the internet’s original vision, which was to endow the users with power rather than concentrating it with central authorities.
The manifestation of building a community on a platform takes various forms. Real-time examples include platforms like Bluesky where genuine communities are thriving. A recent study brought to light that research-related content receives significantly more engagement on Bluesky than on other platforms. Regardless of the kind of communities, they have successfully created engaging and less toxic environments on Bluesky than what they previously experienced.
The focus is not on pursuing a ‘safer space’, but it’s the goal to build superior spaces. This means fostering spaces that allow users actual control over their interaction with the platform using customizable feeds, moderation instruments, and the ability to choose algorithmic preferences.
Inherently, this lies at the core of the dilemma between constructing and pleading. One route leads to maintaining a disempowered state, while the other showcases actual empowerment and community-building. These contrasting paths are starkly evident. While some support the notion of sticking with uncontrollable spaces and battling on, others show that it is unnecessary to accept the status quo when we have the capability to build superior alternatives ourselves.
The true decision isn’t about contributing to augment someone else’s wealth and power or making a proactive effort to craft our ideal future. Why keep a presence on a platform where you lack control, have no say in its governance, and have no influence over its regulations? This isn’t a level of power, but rather a concession of it. Real influence doesn’t stem from pleas. It evolves from building alternatives that render the old approaches obsolete.
The actual choice is not about purity versus practicality. It’s about choosing between the perception of powerless acceptance and the assumption of control. It’s between pleading for meager contributions from the digital moguls and fashioning our own unique platforms. The constructors have already commenced their journey. They’re creating better models. The true question is, how long will it take for you to stop pleading for scraps and join them in their creation of superior alternatives.
The post Choosing Power Over Pleading: A Plea for Active Engagement over Passive Acceptance on Social Media appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
