I'm loathe to give Meta another avenue into my daily life. The algorithms on both FaceBook and Instagram are just aggravating, and the ads are worse. Post seemed promising but has stalled out for me. I am staying on Twitter until the platform dies simply because I connected with such a wide variety of people and accounts. For news and politics, I'm following journalists I trust on Substack. I'm also just logging into my newspaper accounts and getting more disciplined about reading the news from at least 3 sources, if not more. I found an interesting Substack called Oregon 360 that distills Oregon political news fairly well, and I have been reading the Boston Globe as a much less hot-take bad-take version of the NY Times. I do follow individual NY Times writers. I also love the reading lists that Dan and Lyz Lenz provide. It's work to find multiple perspectives, but it prevents the slide into cynicism and disinformation that is really taking hold in the country.
Super helpful commentary and analysis, Dan. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly. As a grassroots organizer working to follow your guidance on the importance of individuals helping spread Dem messaging on social platforms, I have focused most of my efforts on Facebook to reach less politically-engaged voters. But I did not know that Facebook's algorithm deprioritizes news articles. I often share an article and add a personal comment. Is a better approach algorithm-wise to use a relevant graphic, such as those created by the WH comms team, with a personal comment on key news? Thanks for helping us all be better messengers for democracy!
I have to say, this is the reason I started creating political content for Tiktok. And to say there is a hunger for it there is an understatement. I may be crazy, but it seems clear to me, at least, that newswise that’s where the action is.
I really appreciate your thoughtful analysis of our tech-driven, media transformation, with its paramount impact on everything. All of this makes me fear deeply for the future of democracy, a system that depends upon (a) a semblance of an educated or at least informed (read: knowing fact- and truth-based realities) electorate; (b) citizens' abilities and willingness to discuss, debate, and persuade one another based on (a); ability to compromise based on (a) and (b). The fragmentation of our information ecosystems into self-confirming silos takes us away from all of that. And the profit-driven play by all of these platforms to activate and heighten our emotions, drives us even further apart. It's a disaster for democracy, in my opinion.
Before we all presume to know the final product that Threads will become … after FOUR days, let me provide this data point:
My first tweet:
1) wasn’t called a “tweet” … because that nomenclature had not existed yet
2) it was via SMS on a TMOBILE dash, running windows mobile (🤢)
3) the text was “mmmm hot dogs, gross and glorious”
Believe it or not, things did evolve from there.
Yes, Meta’s track record … is … well frankly horrifying… it is a reflection of our collective engagement choices.
I am not suggesting rainbows and unicorn kisses… just that the future is not written and that instead of passive rhetorical treatise, we can take kinetic action in shaping outcomes.
Naive… sure.
But lot less depressing that tossing my hand up and saying “oh well”
Twitter was particularly valuable for learning what was going on in state races last cycle. It was easy to find and vet people who were closely following candidates/races in other districts, and a way to get good info about how candidates were campaigning almost in real time. This was helpful particularly in light of the death of local news. Doesn't sound like Threads will fill that gap as Twitter gets stupider.
The only potential benefit of Threads is to maybe hasten the irrelevance of Twitter. As Dan said, Threads isn't going to fix anything structural about social media. Someone recently pointed out that maybe we don't really want or need a Twitter replacement because the original wasn't that great to begin with.
I'm loathe to give Meta another avenue into my daily life. The algorithms on both FaceBook and Instagram are just aggravating, and the ads are worse. Post seemed promising but has stalled out for me. I am staying on Twitter until the platform dies simply because I connected with such a wide variety of people and accounts. For news and politics, I'm following journalists I trust on Substack. I'm also just logging into my newspaper accounts and getting more disciplined about reading the news from at least 3 sources, if not more. I found an interesting Substack called Oregon 360 that distills Oregon political news fairly well, and I have been reading the Boston Globe as a much less hot-take bad-take version of the NY Times. I do follow individual NY Times writers. I also love the reading lists that Dan and Lyz Lenz provide. It's work to find multiple perspectives, but it prevents the slide into cynicism and disinformation that is really taking hold in the country.
Super helpful commentary and analysis, Dan. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly. As a grassroots organizer working to follow your guidance on the importance of individuals helping spread Dem messaging on social platforms, I have focused most of my efforts on Facebook to reach less politically-engaged voters. But I did not know that Facebook's algorithm deprioritizes news articles. I often share an article and add a personal comment. Is a better approach algorithm-wise to use a relevant graphic, such as those created by the WH comms team, with a personal comment on key news? Thanks for helping us all be better messengers for democracy!
I have to say, this is the reason I started creating political content for Tiktok. And to say there is a hunger for it there is an understatement. I may be crazy, but it seems clear to me, at least, that newswise that’s where the action is.
I really appreciate your thoughtful analysis of our tech-driven, media transformation, with its paramount impact on everything. All of this makes me fear deeply for the future of democracy, a system that depends upon (a) a semblance of an educated or at least informed (read: knowing fact- and truth-based realities) electorate; (b) citizens' abilities and willingness to discuss, debate, and persuade one another based on (a); ability to compromise based on (a) and (b). The fragmentation of our information ecosystems into self-confirming silos takes us away from all of that. And the profit-driven play by all of these platforms to activate and heighten our emotions, drives us even further apart. It's a disaster for democracy, in my opinion.
Here is my unpopular, lukewarm, semi-cogent take:
Before we all presume to know the final product that Threads will become … after FOUR days, let me provide this data point:
My first tweet:
1) wasn’t called a “tweet” … because that nomenclature had not existed yet
2) it was via SMS on a TMOBILE dash, running windows mobile (🤢)
3) the text was “mmmm hot dogs, gross and glorious”
Believe it or not, things did evolve from there.
Yes, Meta’s track record … is … well frankly horrifying… it is a reflection of our collective engagement choices.
I am not suggesting rainbows and unicorn kisses… just that the future is not written and that instead of passive rhetorical treatise, we can take kinetic action in shaping outcomes.
Naive… sure.
But lot less depressing that tossing my hand up and saying “oh well”
Twitter was particularly valuable for learning what was going on in state races last cycle. It was easy to find and vet people who were closely following candidates/races in other districts, and a way to get good info about how candidates were campaigning almost in real time. This was helpful particularly in light of the death of local news. Doesn't sound like Threads will fill that gap as Twitter gets stupider.
The only potential benefit of Threads is to maybe hasten the irrelevance of Twitter. As Dan said, Threads isn't going to fix anything structural about social media. Someone recently pointed out that maybe we don't really want or need a Twitter replacement because the original wasn't that great to begin with.
I agree 100%, Dan.