Cedars, April 2019

by Breanna Beers F rom “fake news” to “covfefe,” Pres- ident Donald Trump’s tweets have become almost as famous as the man himself. Often fuel for his detractors, oc- casionally alarming even to his supporters and, if nothing else, entertaining for those able to sufficiently distance themselves from the actual policy implications, Trump’s Twitter account has provided an immeasur- able amount of free publicity for the sitting president. While he may have been among the first to take full advantage of all the plat- form has to offer, Trump’s use of Twitter is not unique among politicians. More and more public figures are following the pres- ident’s model with varying degrees of suc- cess, opening Twitter almost reflexively in response to any major or minor event. In many ways, Twitter perfectly com- bines the online competition for attention with the political push for polarization to pro- duce the increasingly inflammatory behavior of politicians both online and off. Twitter’s inherently limited nature and tendency to devolve into shouting matches simplifies the story into a clear “us vs. them” narrative. Why Twitter? Why not Facebook, which many think of as the original home of internet battles? According to communica- tion professor Andrew Harris, the structure of Twitter lends itself to the type of debate today’s politicians love. “It’s not built for ‘listening’ rhetoric, where we’re trying to get to the truth,” Har- ris said. “It’s built for ‘win’ rhetoric, where we’re trying to defeat an opponent.” According to Harris, Twitter tends to- ward two things: sarcastic humor and invec- tive “cultural lampooning.” It’s an effective tool to take other people down, whether that’s through ironic wit or strident ar- gumentation. It didn’t create this form of communication, just like it didn’t create the polarization it proliferates. Twitter does, however, provide an outlet and rewards those who take full advantage of it.” Harris identified a number of features that contribute to this. First, the founda- tional limit of a 280-character cap; second, the isolating effect that tends to pull a single tweet out of the context of a broader conver- sation; third, the fact that replying to some- one on Twitter necessarily calls attention to their point and draws in an excited crowd eager to defend their champion. “If you are trying to meaningfully en- gage with other people who have other opinions, you’re not going to be successful on Twitter,” Harris said. “As soon as you engage someone who has a different opin- ion than you, then you become a tool in that person’s arsenal for their followers.” Politics professor Dr. Mark Caleb Smith summarized it succinctly: “Twitter doesn’t work for persuasion; it works for re- inforcement.” While on platforms like Facebook, shouting matches happen between friends and friends of friends, Twitter is for commu- nication with strangers, especially famous strangers. Further, according to a study by the The Next Web, more than 80% of Twitter us- ers follow significantly more people than they are followed by. Twitter is inherently a view- er-based platform, lending itself to the kinds of interactions that seize immediate attention rather than thoughtful consideration. “Twitter is not a town hall mentality; Twitter is a coliseum mentality,” Harris said. “People who have 1,000 followers or higher are starting to enter into this realm of being a Twitter champion, where they are going to be the ones down in the arena duk- ing it out with someone else.” The platform rewards those who fight to win: Trump has nearly 60 million follow- ers on Twitter, but barely one-fifth of that on Instagram. Similarly, according to Smith, Con- gresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is powerful “not because she’s got votes from her district, but … because she’s leveraged social media in such a way that Democrats are afraid of her.” Both these politicians understand the microculture of Twitter and know how to take advantage of it in a way that most of their colleagues don’t. They know who their audience is and who their opponents are. They are aware that audiences are looking for entertainment and journalists for the outrageous. They recognize that success in the media is measured in minutes. Atten- tion is the new currency, and on Twitter, they’ve found the formula for their fortune. “These polarized tribal approaches are easy shorthands,” Smith said. “You don’t have to know a lot; you just have to know who you hate.” In addition to a captive public audience, Twitter also lets Trump and Ocasio-Cortez enjoy the attention of a more selective group, one that’s more active on Twitter than any other social media platform: journalists. Twitter is a valuable tool for the news in- dustry: a resource to tap into for easy articles and prove the institution’s lingering relevance in the digital age. Journalists have an econom- ic incentive to highlight Twitter battles, thus legitimizing the platform’s polarizing power. Twitter allows journalists to dialogue direct- ly with politicians, mobilize public opinion, and get a quick read on the general response to current issues. In many ways, Twitter has become both the new press release and the new public opinion poll. However, Twitter’s opinions aren’t necessarily America’s —while 24% of U.S. adults use Twitter, 80% of those are affluent urban millennials with a college degree, according to Twitter’s business page and Pew Research Center. The PewResearch Center also found that Twitter’s reaction to major political events tended to differ widely from the reaction of general survey respondents — Twitter users were always overwhelmingly more negative and more polarized than the general public. This is a result of the platform’s incentives. Twitter will always naturally tend to- ward the kind of content its structure in- herently favors: that which is pithy, shallow and incendiary. Twitter is full of built-in in- centives, and the people who cater to that kind of content are the ones who will inev- itably succeed. As the 2020 election cycle approaches, recognize that the story Twitter tends to tell is not necessarily the complete one. The real world is more complex than can fit in 280 characters. Breanna Beers is a sophomore molecu- lar and cellular biology major and a staff writer for Cedars. She loves exercising cu- riosity, hiking new trails, and quoting “The Princess Bride” whether it’s relevant or not. April 2019 12 OFF CAMPUS The Politics of the Platform Twitter’s role in public polarization Picture taken from Twitter President Trump defending himself via Twitter.