Yes JB social media can be divisive, can encourage trolls, was used by political friends and foes (including secret foes). It can be intoxicating, and addictive and fill young minds with terrible thoughts. Biden calls it an experiment on a generation. So social media companies need to be more transparent & take responsibility for mental heath damage that can occur & regulate themselves or be regulated.

But all-in-all, 23% of adults use Twitter. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Just like 77% of adults. I opened an account and closed it in less than a week because it’s a trash platform full of hot takes that encourage people to Tweet before thinking. It’s literally built for “trolls” to be powerful.

ROI studies are even showing a trend towards more harm than good from marketing on Twitter. Virtue signaling or standing strong with values: either is turning negative.

If people want to act that way, let them. People who don’t like it can find another platform. Eventually it will just shut down and the problem will solve itself. Will they move to the other platforms? Sure. But then those will cycle as well.

Or, as was suggested last week in our SOSTAC(r) PLans club (in clubhouse*) ignore the tweets by not publishing them in the first place. Rather than pushing them up the rankings within the algorithm by lots of good people condemning and therefore ‘engaging’ with the racist tweets.

*SOSTAC(r) PLans club in Clubhouse app every Fri 3.30-4.00pm BST – join us.

The issues raised are grave and serious from a societal and industrial regulatory point of view, for although sentiment on social media platforms waivers in accordance with different socio economic and political climes, at the heart of the matter are two grave points. 1. What responsibility does as well as should; social media companies have, to monitor and take responsibility for what is posted on their platforms? And 2. What systemic structures can be put in place to mitigate the rapid speed of transmission of negative messages in social Networking sites?