I’ll keep it brief
As you might be aware if you read the Comments on this blog as well as my actual bits of writing, there is a gentleman called Andrew who regularly comments and quite often takes up the contrary position to me. I have no problem with this; in fact I welcome it. I don’t write the blog so people can tell me how amazing I am and how strongly they agree with my points of view. I write it so MOST people can do that, and a few people can argue. Haha.
Andrew is in his forties, with a bunch of kids, so he’s more experienced than me and I have a lot of respect for any opinions he might venture. Over the course of the blog we’ve disagreed on a number of things, including rugby, Twitter and the royal wedding, but politely. One of our ongoing beefs regards the usefulness or otherwise of Twitter and Facebook. Yesterday Andrew wrote:
‘Use the Twitter/Facebook fraternity as your barometer of opinion if you will, but bear in mind that lots of these people are incapable of expressing complex thoughts which require more than one sentence.’
Now, I don’t agree with people who criticise Facebook and – in particular – Twitter for dumbing down public opinion. Here’s why.
1. Brevity is no indication of an opinion’s worthlessness, any more than length is a seal of approval. If you follow Armando Iannucci on Twitter, and read Melanie Phillips’ column in the Daily Mail every day, I dare say you will be more enlightened by his 140-character opinions than by her thousands of words on why climate change is a myth.
2. It’s worth remembering – on this note – that Twitter is used by a score of noteworthy opinion-formers, including Stephen Fry, Brian Cox, Graham Linehan, Caitlin Moran, Kirsty from that property programme, Barack Obama, Minchin, Sarah Brown, and Tim Key. It’s used by MPs, cultural commentators, activists, politicians, scientists, inventors, think-tank-members, authors. Are these people all just wasting their time? It doesn’t seem very likely. It seems more likely that they appreciate the fact that an ongoing dialogue between themselves and their public is a valuable initiative in whatever format it might happen to take. There are far, far too many people using Twitter and Facebook – including influential, successful, articulate people – for anyone to dismiss the whole group as time-wasters with nothing to say.
3. It’s a misconception that Twitter (or Facebook, or whatever) forces you to abbreviate and condense your opinions until they’re meaningless. One of the most common uses of Twitter is to post a link to a petition or article or some other useful web address. Far from melting points of view down to the point of harmful reductiveness, Twitter actually allows more people to address serious debates, simply by sending them in the right direction. Yesterday I read an article on the future of BBC4, and one on 9/11 conspiracy theories, just by clicking on Twitter links. You can say that they would’ve been there anyway, but would I have come across them? Probably not. Social networking sites are a portal to the pick of the internet. You can always ignore what you don’t like. It’s hard to turn your nose up at all the stuff you DO like.
4. These sites also provide a cross-section of popular opinion that is not only instructive but, in its accessibility, unique. Lots was made of the idea that in Iran and Libya and so on, Twitter allowed people to mobilise support for revolutionary forces in ways not possible five years before. At the other end of the scale, Twitter and Facebook allowed the people doing The Awful Riots in London to collude far more quickly than they’d ever have done before. These sites are a hotbed of meme development and instant idea-pooling. Before them, there was not really an equivalent. As these examples show, the fact that Twitter brings people together is neither intrinsically good nor bad; it depends entirely on the use. But the opportunity is there for it to be good – really good. Whether we allow it to be is up to us.
5. In summary – as I’ve said before – criticising Twitter or Facebook for the vacuousness of some of their content is like criticising motorways because some people drive too fast down them. They are enormous rabbit-warrens of fact and opinion and misconception, the same way the Internet as a whole is. To malign them on the basis that some of those facts are misleading, or some of those opinions are simplistic, makes no more sense than saying you shouldn’t go to London because Jack the Ripper used to live there.
The internet is all about our opinions. We shape the world now, rather than allowing it to be shaped for us by people who happened to get jobs in the media. For this to work, we need to be alive to the possibilities of social networking sites – however short their entries are, however much of them might be given over to building a pretend farm. These sites are where people with ideas interact with other people. You might say that they do this online, in fact, more effectively than they ever do in person. There’s no point trying to reverse this trend and there’s nothing to be gained from doing so, anyway. The Internet is where we live now. Let’s decorate the hall.
Posted by John on September 27, 2011
This is fascinating. I wonder if a comedian’s material could actually be influenced by the interaction he has on his blog with his audience. How would Monty Python or Fawlty Towers have turned out had John Cleese engaged with his fans and critics?
Posted by Rachael on September 21, 2011
All very good points Mr Watson. Twitter has opened my eyes up to so many interesting and informative articles and causes that I may never have heard about without it, certainly not instantly anyway.
Posted by Andrew on September 16, 2011
Ah Mr Watson, have you fallen into my trap? Have you read a one sentence opinion of mine, and extrapolated from it to a point which is misrepresentative of my actual feelings, just like happens thousands of times a day on Twitter? (No, you haven’t – I’d love to pretend this really was a trap, but it wasn’t, it’s completely coincidental.) The sentence you quote was intended to be playfully provocative, although reading it back it could easily be interpreted as curmudgeonly or aggressive. That may be my failing as a writer, or it may be the innate lack of nuance that comes from trying to express a complex opinion in one sentence.
I’m not going to say I don’t hate Twitter, I do, and in the unlikely event that anyone cares to know why there’s already a piece about it on my own blog (it’s the fourth one down, after the one about Puuhamaa, one about why I may be falling out of love with football and one about my heart murmur (which turned out to be a bicuspid aortic valve, no less.)) But I do feel the need to defend myself on some of the points you raise. Not least that I am not so old that I need to be referred to as a gentleman. But, taking each point in turn:
1) I didn’t say that brevity is an indication of an opinion’s worthlessness, and I challenge you to find somewhere that I have said that. The closest I can get to it is where I’ve said that with the exception of Tim Vine-esque one-liners or incredibly simplistic demagogic opinionating, I think it’s very, very hard to say anything with any meaning in 140 characters. And I stand by that. It’s not impossible, it’s just very, very hard. Armando Iannucci is a very, very gifted comedian. Most people on Twitter are not.
2) One of the standard defences of Twitter – how can it be bad when all these great people are on it? But – and this is crucial – your previous knowledge of these people gives everything they write a context and a voice to you. We read something Stephen Fry has written and can imagine the tone, his vantage point, whether he is being serious or ironic. And that’s fine. The problem is, it’s not the case with the vast majority of people on Twitter. More of an issue for me, however, in point 2 is the statement “There are far, far too many people using Twitter and Facebook – including influential, successful, articulate people – for anyone to dismiss the whole group as time-wasters with nothing to say.” You and I are, as I made a point of saying in the comment immediately above the one you quote, both people who generally in life gravitate to the areas of opinion either side of the fence, so it’s a bit galling to be painted as someone who is stomping around dismissing EVERYONE who uses Twitter as an imbecile. The key words in the sentence of mine you quote are “lots of these people”, and, again, I stand by that. I will often, happily, decry lots of something, but I will very rarely decry all of anything.
3) Fair point, no argument there.
4) Well, you say it yourself – the “hotbed of meme development and instant idea-pooling” can be a good or bad thing. I would contend that the instantaneousness is likely to more troublesome than beneficial. Which of us can not think of an occasion when we’ve written something in haste, frustrated, when we are feeling most animated, only to have to back-pedal subsequently when we’ve calmed down a bit? Hmm, Mark?
5) Yes, “criticising Twitter or Facebook for the vacuousness of some of their content is like criticising motorways because some people drive too fast down them”, but criticising motorways if they had a dedicated lane marked “Hey, irresponsible drivers, why not come and drive too fast in this special lane which has been designated specifically for it? There might be accidents but, hey, that’s the risk you take!” might have more validity.
Anyway, I’m sure you will agree with me that it’s best if I just refrain from commenting on social networks in future. Apart from anything else I feel like my opinions on it risk me being portrayed as the enemy of frivolity, and that is a long way from the truth.
Posted by Lydia on September 15, 2011
I agree with you. Especially after the Arab Spring documentaries that were on the other week.
That said I have many, many frustrations with Facebook as it sometimes makes me hate the people I know.
Posted by Clembear on September 15, 2011
But would you pay for Twitter? How about Facebook?
I agree that these sites can be very powerful, although the democracy of the internet I question somewhat – so powerful media institutions are no longer powerful? Or will they adapt to new technologies to consolidate further power? Also not everyone actually has high speed internet access, its still pretty much wealthy countries with secure infrastructure, so the “we” tends to be a set of countries and a subset of people within that. And China obviously is complicated.
But anyway, are Facebook and Twitter making actual money? I’m not so sure – so would you pay to keep them? If you had to pay, how does that change the nature of them – do people have an equal voice?
Posted by jen on September 14, 2011
I just want to take a moment to stand up for the vacuous idiots, myself included (my last tweet being a ditty that rhymed wine, fine, mine and awkwardly, rhyme). The mind expanding, universe defining, horizon widening facets of the internet are marvellous. But so are the stupid inanities, don’t dismiss social media because of them, but also don’t dismiss them just because they’re daft and expendable.
Feel free to dismiss me, I’ve had wine and am giggling because it’s from the Olifants river. I think Olifant should be the name for male Elephants.
Posted by Knox on September 14, 2011
these were some of my giddy comments just after joining twitter:
- so, I just joined twitter… there is so much out there to know, my God!
- i’m basically following loads of people who link to articles and sites rather than ditzy ‘ooh – i just spilled baked beans down my top’ type things. for ages i’ve been trying to work out how to start finding out about issues i’m interested in – now it’s like i’m having information and opinions thrown at my head from all sides it’s a bit overwhelming, but also bloody amazing – i’m a bit like a kid in a sweetshop, and will no doubt just spent ages retweeting and posting links on my fb. i will stay as inane as ever, though, so no worries there!
and my twitter profile description:
- risking addiction for the sake of finding stuff out. i will probably retweet *a lot* until i have something decent of my own to say. that may take a while…
you could argue all the above points towards the vacuity and pointlessness that Andrew mentions, but that’s just my innate inanity shining through. overall, i see facebook, twitter and all the other stuff as a way of finding out more about things i’d really like to know, but am not quite sure where to start researching, exchanging ideas with like-minded people, and those that know way more than i do about things, and also just fun. of course you’ll get a load of pointless rubbish. but then you get that in all media – you might as well ban television, radio, and all forms of printed matter!
mark – i’m especially loving your blogs this week. and i agree with cymruangel – love the last line.
Posted by Corey on September 14, 2011
Again, another for the agreed column. I think some people (including my best mate) think they are just for wasting your time and playing silly farmville type games but (as you say) they are what you make it, and its no surprise that more and more businesses are now moving into having social networking outputs. I work at an accountants and we use FB and Twitter to get new business……and very rarely for farmville!?
Posted by Jen on September 14, 2011
I agree (again – sorry!) – like everything in life if you use things like twitter etc to their best n full potential then they can indeed become an invaluable source of knowledge and discussion!Jx
Posted by Ingrid on September 14, 2011
I quite agree. The internet is what you make it. You are only bombarded with rubbish and chain mail if you choose to follow/friend people that post that kind of thing. Simple really…
Posted by cymruangel on September 14, 2011
I concur. After all, Oxford University professors are being quoted on Twitter, and they are (for the most part, as I am sure there are exceptions!) the definition of “not vacuous”.
I particularly liked your closing sentences “The Internet is where we live now. Let’s decorate the hall.” which made me chuckle.
Posted by Kathryn on September 14, 2011
Sometimes I find it hard to defend twitter when people call it “pointless”; in future I will refer to your most excellent arguments.
Posted by Misha on September 14, 2011
Well written and indeed, well argued Watson.
I’m personally a big advocate of twitter/facebook/tumblr etc which has introduced me to more feminist, humanist, and inclusive thinking. (If not the ability to spell feminist, hurrah for spell check!)
It is also a brilliant source of help and information, just today when my own search for an article from yesterdays metro failed, several twitterers found it for me. (The article in question was a really well written piece about a young trans* girl, here: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/875249-child-who-wants-sex-change-goes-back-to-school-as-girl)
Really though, you shouldn’t dismiss any one group of people. Not all women like shopping, not all men like cars, not all lesbians have short hair, and not all gay men talk camply. And in that same vein, not all users of social networks are vacuous idiots posting crap.
Posted by Vicus Scurra on September 14, 2011
On the other hand, you could have just written: “Facebook is very good”.
I would have.