Sign up to get updates from us
The fact that Twitter is a mess is not news or a surprise. The transition to a new "X" logo and the elimination of the blue bird is just another exercise in Elon Musk's narcissism. I'm skeptical of the platform's ability to survive given the precarious decline of its advertising revenues - apparently in the region of 50%, and the periodical and increasing technical instability of the platform.
What does surprise me, is how reporters have continued to support the platform in the face of multiple disturbing actions by Elon Musk which are antithetical to the world of serious journalism:
Clearly Elon Musk's control of Twitter, or x, or whatever it's called now, is toxic. He may have appointed Linda Yacarino as CEO, but I expect he will continue to participate on the platform in an unpredictable and destructive way.
I understand that many journalists have worked long and hard to cultivate a significant following on Twitter, but there is the issue of ethics and morality in continued support of such a degraded and debased platform. I imagine many feel queasy about their continued involvement with the network.
I would suggest that journalists formulate a plan to withdraw, and more importantly migrate to a decentralized network. Why decentralized? - because nobody can own it and there is no threat of a Musk-like acquisition. Mastodon is the obvious choice, and a number of journalists have already established a presence there. I have the pleasure of reading Anne Applebaum of The Atlantic and commentator Robert Reich on the platform to name just two.
I will admit to being more than a bit biased here, as Mastodon is the platform that I choose as my new social media home. For journalists, I think you'll find a welcoming community for your reporting. I know there have been news stories about Mastodon administrators being hostile to journalists, blocking a journalism instance or server and all its members. What is important to understand in that story, is the ban was confined to 200 hundred instances in a world of some 7,000. Why did it happen? That's difficult to know exactly, in the gogo months of the Mastodon signup surge in November last year, admins were stretched to the max and a little contagious paranoia may have manifested itself. How many continue to ban the journalism instance is not known to me and there is very little in the way of follow up reporting that I have detected. I think this is no longer an issue.
As you know, there are some in the journalistic profession who may adopt the moniker of journalist but do little to practice the most basic of tenets associated with the profession. Hostility will rightly be directed at agents of disinformation, that can extend to instances which do little to police those who engage in this kind of practice, I feel comfortable that journalists securely tethered to reality and fact will continue to be welcomed at Mastodon.
Moving to Mastodon has attendant benefits. On the platform, you don't waste time figuring out an opaque algorithm whoose underlying machinations and shifts can relegate your work to obscurity. No algorithm exists. You either have a following or you don't. All that matters is the quality of your work and your willingness to engage. Nor are your posts, engagements, and personal feeds contaminated with unwanted advertising for products that are unaligned with your values. At a bare minimum, journalists should be establishing a position on Mastodon by at least cross posting. In my view, journalists will find a far better level of thoughtful engagement than that available on Twitter.
Media companies both small and large can host their own instance on Mastodon which limits dependence on the whims of other instance administrators. Establishing that kind of presence is inexpensive and there are plenty of services available which will inexpensively handle the setup and maintenance. If you work for a major media company, I'd suggest you encourage your employer to make the move.
The truth is, Twitter is in a precarious financial situation. Its debt burden of $13 billion is not sustainable given the collapse of the platform’s advertising revenue. At the time of acquisition, the company's annual revenues stood at approximately $5 billion. With top line revenues dwarfed by the debt burden and with costs that barely turned a profit before the acquisition, the road to sustainable profitability looked daunting. Twitter had to grow fast and/or cut costs. The dramatic cuts came with something verging on the edge of corporate brutality What didn't come, was growth in the user base and then advertisers started taking their leave in the face of questionable or non-existing content management.
Now default and bankruptcy is more likely than not. The eager backers that financed the initial acquisition are no longer besotted by Musk brilliance and won't be ponying up additional cash for incompetence. Is this the financial profile of company which journalists should be anchoring themselves too?
All this without reference to the disturbing welcome being extended to some of the most problematic trolls on social media. These types, are frequently purveyors of disinformation that is both damaging and potentially deathly dangerous. One just has to think about the COVID crisis to understand this. These nihilistic merchants of disinformation, contribute nothing to the constructive conversation that should be taking place in the public digital square. But, Ah yes, Twitter is not a public square at all, it's controlled by the whims of an unpredictable oligarch who has shown himself to be willing to ban reporters whose work doesn't meet with his approval. So why opt for another nonpublic square? Decentalization is where it's at.
The writing is on the wall. It’s time to make the move. Join Mastodon
