Twitter Isn't a Public Square. It's a Coliseum

newsweek.com

12 pointswrineha22 comments

[F]ar from a public square, social media is largely a spectator sport when it comes to sharing political views. When politics does come up, people come to watch others duke it out, while working hard to avoid participating.

Public squares have always been styled as places where the general public would gather to share and exchange ideas, discuss politics, and engage in debate. This is not what is happening online. The Pew Research Center's survey of social media users found that only 9 percent of those online say they often discuss, comment, or post about politics. Most people are uncomfortable discussing politics, including in online arenas.

Both these polls add depth to a well-understood trend: People live a lot of their lives online—yet they still rarely engage in politics there. Only the politically active are going online to talk politics. The rest of us are going there to watch, like spectators at a coliseum.

I maintain that the short-form limitation of Twitter is exactly what amplifies the shitstorm compared to other social media platforms. Being anonymous makes people act like assholes, but when you only have 140 (now 280) characters to speak your mind, it guarantees that conversations across the site will be less clear and more often misunderstood. And miscommunications between people who are already anonymity-shielded dickwads leads to a positive feedback loop of Syfy's new worst movie, Shitnado.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com