Thread by @petersagal

I'm grateful for this article, which says with authority and clarity what I've been thinking as I observe this week's Twitter War. (thread)

thebulwark.com/the-problemati…

Mayor Pete doesn't need me to defend him -- if he did, he's really in trouble -- so 'll mention something I've been thinking a lot about: that the most insidious nature of Twitter et al is not people expressing hatred/rage/vitriol but people signaling their membership.

We all loathe and disdain the trolls who rain hatred down on strangers. We would never do that, because we are not trolls. Instead, all we do is make sure everything we tweet will be delightful to our followers/audience, so as to maintain our good standing in our tribe.

Sometimes, we see an idea or POV trending in our feed, and we say to ourselves, Wow, if I say that same thing but better/funnier/punchier, it might go viral! And then I can make the Soundcloud joke!

And many times, that idea or POV of the moment is a condemnation of a common target. Columnist X or politician Y said this dumb thing! Everybody I follow scorns them! And thus, so shall I, in my distinctly individual way!

...without, often, checking the truth of whatever's being reported. Without looking at the context, or measuring it against everything else they've done/said. And without realizing that expressing hatred at the Enemy of the Moment doesn't make you an activist or engaged citizen.

It makes you part of a mob.

/FIN

By the way, I first heard this idea -- that the danger of social media is not hatred but self-reinforcement -- from @selectedwisdom. Read his book.