Why Twitter is dying (and what can be learned from this situation)

It’s early summer, I’m in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington State. Something is wrong here: it seems to me that people lately send tweets much less often than usual. But I need to finish the book, so for the time being I postpone my observations to return to them later.



It's late summer now, and I stand, frowning, at Madison Square. Something is clearly wrong. Twitter looks like a deserted pub ... It seems that people are rushing to leave as quickly as possible, rolling their eyes in their displeasure. Perhaps (I tell myself), is everything just on vacation?

')

And then came the early autumn, and I am in my favorite London cafe. Twitter is like a big haunted cemetery. I call them "ists." Journalists retweet journalists, activists - activists, but economists - of course, economists. From time to time a great war unfolds between the various groups of "ists", only now ... no one cares ... because everyone else hastily got off the train.



What happened to Twitter? Just some kind of mystery, isn't it?



Not really.



In order to understand what really happened, let's analyze what has NOT happened. Competition. Starting from the status of the new "startup of the day" ...



The problems of Twitter came about as a result of something deeper and at the same time simple. Thus, at a certain moment he simply turned out to be invisible. Twitter is literally the victim of its own short-sightedness.



I present to your court my modest theory, which can be expressed in one word. Aggression. And in the future I want to develop the idea that it is aggression, and not the desire to put together money, is a huge problem of the world of technology and media. This problem is the greatest difficulty facing the modern Internet. It is much more important than censorship, norms, or (ugh, what a byaka!) Monetization. This is a problem of staggering magnitude and unprecedented scale. And worse, it is very expensive: it cannot be solved in cheap ways, like fixing a code or issuing updates.



So that you understand me correctly, let me explain what I mean by talking about aggression. This is not just an obvious “mistreatment”. It is also endless squabbles, predictable sarcastic or mocking comments and comments, the general atmosphere of constant aggression that permeates social networks ... and the fact that an ordinary person is not able to do anything about it.



At one time, we glorified Twitter as a great social network, similar to a city square - shining Agora, where everyone can come together to socialize. But I have never been to the town square, where people kick and push each other, poisonously mock, hound, threaten, stalk, make vile and mob you ... having overheard the conversation, of which they were not ... just to throw out the rage inherent in people ... because their dreams were shattered ... and you can't even call the cops (to kick their ass - note the translator). How do you like this social phenomenon? Twitter could be a great city square. But now it’s more like a drunken, enraged booth. And people who like to dive in this shit may not be the audience with whom you would like to build a multi-million, exchange-traded company that should change the world.



The Internet has become a terrible place, full of cruelty. This is because the companies that run the ball simply do not take aggression seriously ... in fact, they do not take it into account at all. When was the last time you heard the CEO of a major technology company talking about ... aggression ... and not about advertising? Why not? The bitter truth is that they see aggression as something that is on the periphery of the "business models", as something insignificant and certainly not worthy of investment, because their main efforts are aimed at ... selling advertising.



They are wrong. The depth of their fallacies is astounding. Aggression kills social communities and therefore it does not belong to the "periphery of business models" - it is in the heart. It produces a perceptible cooling effect — once punctured, people simply stop using the network and leave ... and it seems that this is what happens with Twitter. Aggression is also critical for technologies that are designed to bring people together, as for light industry - the sale of uninfected Salmonella beef. The simple fact is that people do not want to live their lives, listening to the accusations and dirt in their address from those people whom they will never meet, who are angry at all not on them, but on the world, for the things that they hardly said people who are practically unaware. It seems to me that this problem is extremely important. I will say it again, just easier: build a platform infected with aggression, close your eyes to it, consider that this is not a problem - and you are already in tomorrow’s list of services that have lost their popularity, you just don’t know it yet.



And from this it is not clear that their products and services are in fact originally from themselves. The organizations described above are aimed at achieving the goals of the industrialization era, such as increasing productivity and efficiency through selling at the highest price and manufacturing products at the lowest cost. A packaged meat company selling rotten beef, from which people are poisoned, will sooner or later face a decrease in sales. The same will happen with the social network, which is infected with negative and abuse - it will inevitably begin to lose users. I can highlight this from the position of an economist, if you do not mind: the network directly affects powerful social technologies, but the negative is a peculiar effect that does not work for it. I do not benefit from being in such a network - I suffer.



This is what can truly be called exposure and discovery: Q & A in technologies is viewed from the point of view of code - not behavior. Technology in the context of culture is so far from reality that it is hardly capable of understanding what it is firmly connected with: not with the code, but with the presentation of social interaction. These are not only questions of bits and bytes - but questions of norms and values. Therefore, technology is absolutely unable to comprehend the concept of quality in any meaningful way. "Quality" is not just a code without errors, it is an interaction without a negative.



You can write flawless code, but if as a result it gives room for constant humiliation, threats, insults, squabbles, cavils, wrangles and squabbles, then ... well, this is good evidence that people do not use it to extract real value. And that's the whole point. When technologies are used to reduce the capabilities of people, rather than expand them, they may not be valuable to the latter. The simple fact is: technologies that devalue us lose value for us. If technology creates opportunities for interaction, poisoned by aggression, then we can safely talk about the decline in the quality of this technology below the level when it benefits people. This interaction becomes toxic.



But the question of negativity and aggression has much more subtle, invisible facets - they are the underwater part of an iceberg.



Aggression does not appear from a vacuum. A healthy mind does not need aggression and does not exude it. Aggression is caused by trauma, and the injured mind becomes aggressive. Such a mind wants to get rid of the pain - to throw all the negative outward, to bury it inside of itself, to escape from its own malice and frustration - otherwise it risks being broken or torn by this pain.



But the concern is the following fact.



We have created an aggressive society. We have made negative, insults and aggression something normal, orderly and routine. Even at work we are humiliated by all the rules, norms and expectations of our work, where we are considered only as "human resources" that are used, distributed and exhausted. We are shamelessly exploited by industries that prey on our innocence and profit from human weaknesses. And now the slop is poured on us and from the screens of our computers and mobile devices - we are insulted by people whom we will never meet, for what we have hardly said. We live in a society where shooting at schools has become a habitual fact, not an exception, where more and more people are taking antidepressants ... and now it’s also added that almost everyone gets a portion of insults on the network - for an ordinary, insignificant comment, idle thoughts something trivial, unimportant and meaningless.



We are experiencing a century of stagnation, a century of broken hopes and unjustified expectations. And what is in stagnation is not “just the economy”, it is we ourselves. Our capabilities and potential, the lives we need to live. All fat and creates a huge cycle of aggression. Stagnation is aggression. And we are its victims. We were not only pushed about in every way at work, in social contracts, in the amount of pensions and savings — at the same time we were also deprived of the opportunity to be ourselves. But in our anger and despair, we throw out aggression. Endlessly (at least in the social networks) we run against each other, threaten, poison others, find out relationships, blame ... and all this from scratch. Victims of aggression become aggressors.



This is a huge megatrend, and social networks are part of it: a fierce society, a great stagnation, crowning a wave of aggression. Do you think I'm exaggerating? Then take a break for a moment and think about the growth of right-wing extremist parties around the world. The indignation and disappointment generated by stagnation are the fuel for all this. And this indignation and disappointment - as a manifestation of endless anger or passive aggression of bitter irony - is probably the main attribute of today's culture. We begin to insult each other after we have become victims of aggression.



And this really is a huge problem. Here, too, an indication of the role that social technologies have to play if they want to return their value is traced. The most successful social platforms will be those that reverse the cycle of aggression, which is the brainchild of stagnation. Those that will help heal the emotional wounds of people in our age of broken dreams. These wounds are deep. Not the fall caused them. Not a knife. They were applied with a scalpel, the blade of which is sharper than sin. And the wounds will bleed until they are cured - not by bandages and potions, but by mercy, pity, love and meaning.



So let me speak my Twitter epitaph. No, he's not really "dead" yet. But I think that in a sense, part of him died. This can be seen as a kind of promise, or prediction. Let me clothe history for you in this form.



It seemed to us that we had created a revolution. But we did not take a big lesson from the revolution. Today's revolutionary is tomorrow's tyrant. The French Revolution began as a great ode to human power. And its culmination was a tidal wave of terror and bloodshed. Likewise, every revolution takes place - and the digital revolution is no exception. Cross the line and the inquisitors will pounce on you. Therefore, it is better to keep quiet than to dare to defy the fury of the revolution itself.



Like all convinced revolutionaries, we dreamed of establishing a new order that would make people freer, more truthful, better. We dared to undermine the old order, in which the thirsty authorities led the thoughts of the impotent. But we ourselves have created a new device, not much different from the previous one. Like all staunch revolutionaries, we do not fully understand the very essence of the revolution. When we give free rein to animal energy, which destroys even that freedom, the creation of which was its task, the opportunity should not stand above power.



Can we create a better network? Yes of course. But it seems to me that we need to start with humility, gratitude and a vision of reality - not arrogance, liberties and blindness. Aggression is not a trifle or an unpleasant trivial little irritation that “other people” have to put up with for the great privilege of having our world-changing technologies in their dirty little hands. It will freeze the network, stop their growth and destroy the community, not allowing them to grow, and will not leave room for flowering lives. If your goal is social interaction, then aggression is also destructive for him, as for the buyer - infected beef. If you don't understand this, you can share with Twitter the fate that befell it in 2015. Not a wonderful community in the central square of the city, but an angry raging crowd in a cesspool. Good luck if you are going to find those who need it.



What is really happening with Twitter these days? The people themselves were divided into small groups and clans. The task of each clan - to protect their beliefs, their customs, their culture - in fact, their worldview. The digital world is divided into “ists” - no matter which ones (economists, activists, fighters for someone’s rights, left, right forces) - and all these “ists” initially put their “digital religion”, if you will, above all . Therefore, for them, this is a kind of altar, to which everyone (including you) should pay respect, and if you suddenly dare not to bow your head or, even worse, to challenge their idol, then the believers will do everything they consider necessary - all in order to protect their gods. And they will go on a crusade against you.



Here's what it looks like:



Step 1: you are somewhat lazily saying something that doesn’t like “ists” because it looks like a challenge to their beliefs.

Step 2: they notice it.

Step 3: the action has begun. Full-fledged partisan information war. Furious mobbing, attempts to shame (if you are female), brutal threats and more.



But pay attention: in all these endless srachs, eternal skirmishes, incessant attraction of electronic cruelty, we do not fight for something essential from the outset. Should we then be surprised that people gradually refuse to participate in this children's game?



Engineers and specialists with an MBA diploma, who act as cardinals and archbishops of modern technoculture, are not likely to like my explanation. They will rest with their hands and feet - for the simple reason that my theory is challenging their fundamental beliefs and worldview. They still built their companies with the help of the very organizational methods they were taught. Product management departments, engineering units, monetization managers, etc.



I recommend other posts:



GTD in English (and not only): a new look at learning foreign languages

Doomed to destruction: is your startup alive or knowingly dead?

What happens to our brain during procrastination?