Why Twitter is important
Why Twitter is important
Many civil and political activists, researchers, and sociologists believe that studying social networks is a futile and pointless endeavor because the users of these platforms do not represent Iranian society; they only show a part of it.
Others believe that whatever is observed on social networks is merely a reflection of society and has no impact on it.
However, I have a different viewpoint and believe that studying social networks, including Twitter, is essential for two reasons. First, social networks do not merely have a reflective nature. It’s not that these networks have no effect on society.
The second reason is that we should not be deceived by numbers. It is true that only 3 to 5 percent of the Iranian population uses Twitter, but a quarter of our students use it. If we want to know what the future looks like, we need to look at this generation, where their information sources are, and what environments they are being influenced by. Besides the media consumption of Generation Z, Twitter affects the media consumption of our elites, especially our political elites.
Many political activists are influenced by the interactions within Twitter. Ignoring all of this and not seeing Twitter’s impact on Iranian society makes us overlook the reality within the society.
What impact has Twitter had on the culture of its users?
That is why I defined the impact of Twitter on political culture as my research project to study.
I have been a Twitter user for years, spending minutes and even hours daily on it. For this research, I combined my observations with big data analysis of Twitter to provide a comprehensive analysis beyond participatory observation.
These can also be seen in the big data analysis of Twitter presented in this book, showing that Twitter, through creating like-minded communities and mechanisms like selective ignoring or blocking, has made its Farsi-speaking user environment not bipolar but multipolar or fragmented, to put it differently.
In these scattered groups, internal trust is high, but trust in members outside of that group, tribe, cluster, or whatever name we give it, is low. I had observed how among political poles, members of each group perceive the other pole as its enemy, and in this way, the Twitter environment has influenced the interactions among its political activists.
Over time, I even saw that Twitter changes the discourse of political activists, seemingly making it more hostile. This is not limited to Twitter. You cannot talk to someone in a public space within social networks using the sharpest words and expect this sharp discourse not to affect your real-world interactions.
Many political activists on Twitter are concerned with democracy and consider themselves pro-democracy. Hence, the impact of this environment on the elements of democratic culture became the subject of my research.
One cannot expect a democratic political system if the political elites and people have no relation to democratic culture. Dialogue cannot flow within a society where groups and political forces view each other with suspicion and distrust, and moderate forces are silenced, yet expect a transition to democracy. Through daily observation of the Twitter environment, I felt that this environment does not aid the process of democratization in Iran.
The findings I presented in the book ‘The Twitterization of Politics’ show that the Twitter environment deepens inequality, intensifies distrust, and reduces tolerance. In this environment, due to the 280-character limit for expressing opinions, dialogue does not form, and to express a viewpoint, one is compelled to write a short and even sharp content.
Numerous studies have shown that the sharper you write on Twitter, the more audience you will have and the better you will be seen.
These factors prevent the formation of a tolerant dialogue on Twitter. Twitter has also had positive effects on society. In my opinion, Twitter has led to some truths being revealed, officials becoming more accountable, and being more mindful of their actions and behavior, but its negative effects should not be overlooked.
A significant portion of our society has become enamored with these positive features and is therefore inattentive to its negative effects, which I have conceptualized as the ‘Twitterization of politics.’
But what characteristics does a Twitterized politics contain?
The first characteristic is the prevalence of populist approaches. In a platform society where more likes and views have become a new value, a source of income and attention, populist approaches can buy credibility and fame and even wealth. People take positions to please others to get more likes, and this is where demagogic behaviors are seen. Twitter celebrities move along the trending timeline, always swimming with the current, trying to tweet in ways that get more likes.
Another characteristic prevailing on Twitter is the strengthening of individual behaviors over collective actions. The tweets of an account are now seen as much more important among political activists than the positions of a political party, which causes individuals to lean towards Twitter activity instead of institutional and organizational activity because they feel more impactful this way.
And the third characteristic is radicalism, both in form and content. But the important point is that this radicalism has not remained on Twitter; rather, the culture governing it has extended to spaces outside of it. Now, even in official spaces, younger people easily speak against older generations who once had respect and reverence, mocking them. Of course, we must note that social phenomena are not monocausal, and various factors influence their formation. It’s not just Twitter causing these changes, but Twitter is certainly one of these factors.
What should be done?
I now think that since 2017, after about 7 years of continuous activism by political activists on Twitter and after what has transpired in recent years, the impact of Twitter should be clear to everyone. I’ve spoken at length, but please pay attention to this final part of my talk: through Twitter, neither can coalitions be built nor consensus achieved. Twitter not only does not help create solidarity but also creates an environment where suspicion and distrust are heightened, and distances increase.
Anyone who has paid attention to the impact of Twitter in recent years should have realized that activity on Twitter cannot replace political activism and collective activity. Twitter does not benefit conservatives, reformists, monarchists, republicans, leftists, or rightists. Instead, it greatly benefits those seeking projects and funding and those who want to create division and rifts to rule over us.
Because there, the possibility of computational propaganda, which is an important concept that should be discussed more, hinders healthy activism because dialogue does not form there, among dozens of other reasons. But what I want to say in conclusion is that Twitter has changed the atmosphere and space of politics governing Iran.
Politics in Iran has become Twitterized, meaning, in a word, it has become more radical. Individual actions have taken precedence over collective actions, and populist approaches have been strengthened. That is, exactly what we see on Twitter is seen in society, albeit to a lesser extent. Of course, other factors have also contributed to the formation of this situation, and societal changes should not be viewed as monocausal. This space can be changed, provided that we first correctly understand the mechanisms that have caused it.
