Like, isn't "small text blurbs" better than nothing? ... Do you think billionaires bought and crippled Twitter and Reddit for our sake?
We recently got hard evidence that Facebook and Twitter censored true information at the White House's request; to drive people toward a desired political outcome... On Threads, that wouldn't even have been necessary. They just call any debate they don't like 'political', and de-platform it. Silent, and deadly.
Reddit and Twitter have been suicided. That's not actually a boon, as toxic as they were pre-Musk and pre-SpezGate. Now a platform where political engagement is explicitly shadowbanned rises up to offer ever-more vacuous bullshit heavily dosed with pro-corporate propaganda, with the glimpses of substance all expressly filtered out. That's not a boon either, though that's what seems to be the spin.
I do hope your optimism isn't misplaced. Maybe driving the engaged people toward defederated platforms will work out, and we can leave the sports-minded to their own devices - but realistically, those people will be weaponized against change even more easily once the agitators have been sectioned off.
It's like the free speech zones Bush brought in - say whatever the fuck you like, in this little cage two miles from any TV cameras.
I honestly don't think they are. Small text blurbs are not actually informative. You can't engage in nuance, you can't really argue a position, and you can't really have a good debate. They're just good for bloviating, and there are lots of places where you can bloviate anyway.
As it turns out, social media short-circuited traditional methods of organizing. Those traditional methods of organizing, ie, actually knocking on doors and talking with your neighbours, were also the social glue that formed civic groups which did stuff after the protest ended, like voter drives or lobbying politicians, political tactics which actually worked.
Do you think what happened to OWS was just because of tweets lack of effectiveness? I don't believe that, and neither should you.
I did try to find the study you mentioned, as well as the podcast, but came up empty. Got a link handy?
I think why I enjoy sports so much more than politics—my ministry is the NBA and WNBA—is that it’s inherently a game so you don’t impose any of the IRL stress politics does. And to elaborate on why I find them similar is that in sports, you take stock of the landscape, analyze your standing, and strategize on improving eg optimal use of resources. And those r true over stretches of years or during a single game.
As the parent alluded to, Twitter is definitely not the place for this nuanced discourse and unfortunately any stereotypical nerd that would be more wont to honestly engage probably didn’t grow up playing a sport or at the very least not such a mainstream American sport like basketball and has no interest in the topic.
But it’s whatever. I still find great joy theorizing, seeing the results of different implementations, being presented with ideas I hadn’t thought of (these r like lineup combos and play calls), team/player growth, etc
Dunno what your point is, and don't mind not knowing. If you want to make a weird pronouncement about Twitter having no effect on politics, I suggest you do it on Threads so that it'll be marked as political and shadowbanned.
Facebook is now offering the 'cure' to a disease they spread themselves, for profit. And monetizing it, with ads from corporations who lobby heavily.
This 'cure' is another series of steps toward complete disengagement with everything that might actually improve the lives of the 99% (ie, actual politics).
Climate change is politics, inequality is politics, corruption is politics - all of it shoved under the rug in favor of yet more inane sports and celebrity trivia.