Read on Twitter
When Twitter was first created there wasn& #39;t a word for & #39;Tweet& #39;. That word was created by the users. And that I think sums up how Twitter manages to be peak communism and peak capitalism all at the same time: & #39;Here you go guys, have this thing where you can basically say whatever
you want and people might listen but also they probably won& #39;t because they& #39;re much more likely to listen to people with power and fame and that will be quantifiably mapped out in front of your eyes in the form of followers and likes and retweets.& #39; And yes, youre right - someone
with 17 followers CAN write a funny or meaningful tweet that CAN catapult them into Twitter fame. BUT. MOSTLY. They won& #39;t get many more followers from it or, if they do, those followers will eventually drop off when they realise that what that personal origionally offered them
was the equivalent of a DMC with a mutual friend on a stag or some really great crack with a kooky gal in the toilets of a club at 2am. (Crack in the Irish sense, not the class A sense, obvs). Those moments are pretty hard to recreate in the cold light of day. And yes you& #39;re also
right that people can get a following if they have a certain & #39;expertise& #39;. But as we know a lot of us are in curated Twitter bubbles following a certain cause or identity or industry. One of my bubbles is the world of UK theatre where some writers, artists, producers etc get
10k + followers because of the work they do or the commentary they have (had) on theatre (RIP). But I don& #39;t think those views and tweets see much light of day beyond the twittersphere of those curated, personalised bubbles. (No offence Luke Barnes. Please keep tweeting I love
you.) We& #39;ve all basically decided who the keynote speaker is at our never-ending user-made conference about whatever niche thing we& #39;re interested in (ours is Luke Barnes, in case you hadn& #39;t worked that out). And that& #39;s so great and so affirming but meanwhile the President of the
United States is the most powerful person on Twitter, just how he& #39;s the most powerful person off Twitter. And if we, the users, created the word & #39;tweet& #39; are we, the users, also responsible for these Twitter power structures? Have we recreated a parallel system that just oppresses
us all in the same way the real world does? And if so, have we given legitimacy to those real world power structures? In 2017 Twitter doubled the character count from 140 to 280. The following year they found that only 12% of Tweets were over the origional 140 characters. But
I don& #39;t think that& #39;s because people only have 140 characters worth of thoughts to say just how I don& #39;t think Donald Trump is the most powerful man on Twitter because the users have consciously decided that he should be. Once structures are created it& #39;s human nature to uphold
them. We, generally, like to follow the rules because we, generally, like to try to function as a society rather than as individuals. I think there& #39;s a lot of hope in that, even if it means systems are then nearly impossible to break. Anyway,
I& #39;ve written this in long form as a small act of Twitter rebellion. But basically, the short form version is: I had a dream last night that Trump woke up with 0 followers on Twitter and I honestly can& #39;t cope with how amazing that would be if it actually happened. #UnfollowTrump
I& #39;ve just googled it and it& #39;s a myth the word & #39;Tweet& #39; was created by the users. It was created by Craig Hockenberry who worked for Twitter. So I guess we don& #39;t have any power after all. But look it& #39;s taken me ages to write this out so I& #39;m going to press equivalent-word-for-Tweet.
