Twitter and the Demise of Good-Faith Debate
When social platforms inhibit, rather than facilitate, productive public discussion
The decline of charitable debate is one of the more lamentable casualties of our present cultural moment. It is both a product of, and an accelerant toward, our social and political polarization.
Nowhere is this more evident than on social media, particularly on Twitter. On a daily basis, Twitter users rabidly argue with one another even when the disagreements are mild. The election of Donald Trump has only seemed to exacerbate this trend. No longer is it sufficient to merely agree to disagree — now, dissenting opinions must take the form of personal attacks or one runs the risk of failing to imbue one’s response with the appropriate level scorn. The effects are disastrous: rather than facilitating a debate on the merits, Twitter and other platforms reduce discourse to insults, mischaracterizations, and fallacious arguments.
Intentional misrepresentations of tweets is a particularly acute aspect of this problem. All too often, otherwise banal or uncontroversial statements are stripped of their context and original intent, as a means of discrediting the tweeter. Anyone familiar with the platform has seen the pile-on phenomenon where hundreds, at times even thousands of users indignantly reply to a viral tweet or statement. These replies often go beyond merely critiquing the statement in question; personal abuse of the most vitriolic kind is standard fare in these situations. These replies in turn garner thousands of retweets and likes and earn the outraged replier a great deal of praise.
Recently, a piece from the New York Times profiling white nationalist Tony Hovater drew sharp criticism across much of Twitter, which was to be expected given the controversial subject matter.
There was one claim against the article, and the New York Times by extension, which stretched credulity. The claim was that, by publishing the article without explicitly denouncing the subject of the piece, the Times was guilty of “normalizing” white nationalists, as well as being “sympathetic” to their plight. To accuse the New York Times, a transparently liberal-leaning newspaper, as being somehow sympathetic to Neo-Nazis is a spurious and unserious claim. Worse, the response to people who disputed this framing often involved accusing them of also being sympathetic to white nationalists.
Writing for Commentary, Noah Rothman succinctly highlights the issue with some of the responses to the Times’ article. As Rothman notes, the whole point of the article was to highlight the all too ordinary nature of Hovater and how such people are finding ways to integrate themselves into society. Rothman rightly points out that it should go without saying that Neo-Nazi ideology is abhorrent and repellent. Talk of “normalization” was muddle-headed — what, were some Twitter users worried that some Times readers were going to think: “Well, would you look at that! Nazi ideology isn’t so bad, after all!”?
In many ways, Twitter and other platforms, as well as new media more broadly, reward dishonest argument. Rational, calm discussion of issues is often met with indifference or goes ignored altogether. Sometimes a measured posture is interpreted as something sinister: “What’s that? You disagree that the Times is normalizing Nazis? You’re holding up a tiki torch right now, aren’t you?”
The above points to, but also exacerbates, our growing social divide. It has been well documented, for instance, that partisanship has increased significantly in recent years. Surveys have shown that liberals are veering further left consistently, while conservatives are lurching ever rightward. A far smaller proportion of the population holds a mix of liberal and conservative views, according to data from Pew Research. This has resulted in absolutist discourse, incapable of pondering issues in a complex, nuanced manner.
In response to the above, we might ask: If these situations are commonplace, and they’re demonstrably harming our capacity for discourse, why not leave networks such as Twitter and Facebook behind?
Although this line of thinking is understandable, and although a temporary break from social media is both advisable and necessary, ceding these platforms to their most aggressive and censorious elements is no long-term solution.
Another solution, one that is unfortunately being adopted more and more frequently, is to self-censor to the point of abandoning controversial issues altogether. This is partly because of the way in which Twitter is designed; one of its issues at present is the inconsistent nature of its system for reporting abuse. The process by which Twitter assesses claims of abuse and misconduct is opaque and not applied consistently. Take, for example, the case of a user who responded to a tweet from the American Nazi Party. The user was promptly removed from the site, with no explanation given for the ban. To circumvent these arbitrary bans, many Twitter users are electing to avoid mentioning contentious issues altogether.
Promoting rational discussion within the parameters of social media appears, at times, to be a fruitless effort. Yet it is essential that such efforts continue. Open, honest debate is fundamental to any liberal democracy. There are steps that platforms such as Twitter need to take to facilitate this. Their processes for issues such as reporting abuse and banning accounts need to be made transparent and applied in a consistent manner. If users feel that the rules are clear and consistently adhered to, they will feel more confident in using the platform to express their honest opinions without fear of reprisal. Twitter should also reverse its decision to allow content-based criteria into their verification decisions. Verification is important to establish the identity of a notable user. Instead, it has become a status symbol and a measure of prestige on the platform. In effect, it creates a two-tier system on the platform, with some users being more important than others.
It is also up to us as users of these platforms to encourage calm, rational debate and resist mobbing, ridiculing and abusing those with whom we disagree. This is a significantly more complex problem that goes beyond any single social media platform. Part of the solution will involve promoting education which emphasizes critical thought and open debate. At present, many universities and colleges do the opposite, censoring and penalizing students and teachers alike for promoting unorthodox views of any kind. Inexorably, this trickles down to the rest of society in the form of a public norm. The narrow, left-leaning views entrenched within our universities do not help matters. The presence of ideological diversity is a necessary bulwark against the natural stifling of truth that occurs when there are rigid constraints on what is acceptable to think and say in public discussions.
Aside from promoting free speech and open debate in educational institutions, there are a few principles that can be followed which can also promote civil, good-faith discourse. One involves asking for clarification to confusing or contentious points made by a user. Instead of rushing to condemn, pausing to find out more would be a good first step to lessen Twitter’s culture of piling on to a poorly-phrased tweet. Twitter’s recent decision to double the character limit will likely help in this regard, as more information and context can be added to a single tweet.
Contextualizing and not catastrophizing every political event is also important. Take the recent decision by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to reform the tax code, introducing $1.5 trillion in tax cuts. To be sure, this is a highly contentious decision and is well worth critiquing and examining. However, declarations on the #TaxScamBill hashtag that the Republic has been killed by this bill, or that thousands and even millions of people will immediately die, are irresponsible, debate-halting instances of hyperbole. Good-faith, rational discourse must avoid this highly emotional, irrational type of rhetoric.
