Why Twitter is Important
Why Twitter is Important
Many civil and political activists, researchers, and sociologists believe that studying social networks is futile and pointless because the users of these platforms do not represent Iranian society and only show a part of it.
Others believe that everything observed on social networks is merely a reflection of society and does not affect it.
However, I have a different perspective and believe that studying social networks, including Twitter, is essential for two reasons. Firstly, social networks do not merely have a reflective nature; it’s not true that these networks have no impact on society.
The second reason is that we should not be deceived by numbers. It is true that only 3 to 5 percent of Iranian society uses Twitter, but a quarter of our students use it. If we want to know what the future looks like, we must look at this generation to see where their information sources are and what environments they are influenced by. In addition to 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 dynamics within Twitter. Ignoring all of this and not seeing Twitter’s impact on Iranian society leads us to neglect the reality within society.
What impact has Twitter had on the culture of its users?
That’s 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 many minutes and even hours on it daily. For this research, I combined my observations with the analysis of Twitter’s big data 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 how Twitter, through creating like-minded communities and mechanisms like selective blocking, has made its Persian-speaking user environment not bipolar but multipolar or fragmented.
I observed that in the political poles, members of each group view the other as their enemy, affecting the interactions among political activists.
Over time, I even noticed that Twitter changes the discourse of political activists, making it seemingly more hostile. This issue is not limited to Twitter; you cannot speak with the sharpest words in a public social network arena 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, which is why the impact of this environment on the elements of democratic culture became the subject of my research.
You cannot expect a democratic political system if its political elites and people have no relation to democratic culture. You cannot have a society where dialogue does not flow, political groups and forces look at each other with suspicion and mistrust, and moderate forces are silenced, yet expect a transition to democracy. Due to observing Twitter’s environment daily, I felt this environment does not help 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 must write a short and even sharp content.
Numerous studies have shown that the sharper you write on Twitter, the more audience you will attract and the better you will be seen.
These factors prevent the formation of tolerant dialogue on Twitter. Twitter has also had positive effects on society. In my opinion, Twitter has led to some truths being revealed, officials being more accountable, and more cautious about their actions and behavior. However, its negative impacts should not be overlooked.
A significant part of our society is enamored with these positive features and therefore pays no attention to its negative impacts, which I have conceptualized as the ‘Twitterization of Politics.’
But what features does a Twitterized policy contain?
The first feature is the prevalence of populist approaches. In a platform society where more likes and views are considered a new value, a source of income and attention, populist approaches can buy credibility and fame and even lead to wealth. People adopt positions to please others to get more likes, and here is where demagogic behaviors are observed. Twitter celebrities move on the trending timeline, always swimming with the tide and trying to tweet in ways that get more likes.
Another feature prevalent on Twitter is the strengthening of individual behaviors over collective actions. Today, the tweets of an account are seen as much more important among political activists than the positions of a political party, causing individuals to turn to Twitter activity instead of institutional and organizational activities because they feel more impactful this way.
And the third feature is radicalism, both in form and content. However, the important point is that this radicalism has not remained on Twitter but has extended its governing culture to spaces outside it. Now, even in official spaces, younger people easily speak against older generations, who once commanded respect and esteem, and mock them. Of course, of course, we must remember that social phenomena are not caused by a single factor, and various factors influence their formation. It’s not just Twitter that has caused these changes, but Twitter is certainly one of these factors.
What should be done?
I now think that since 2017, after about seven years of continuous activism by political activists on Twitter and after what we’ve experienced in recent years, the impact of Twitter should be clear to everyone. I spoke a bit long, but please pay attention to this final part of my talk. Through Twitter, neither can coalitions be built nor can consensus be achieved. Twitter not only does not help create solidarity, but it creates an environment where suspicion and mistrust are intensified, and distances increase.
Anyone who has paid attention to Twitter’s impact in recent years should have realized that activity on Twitter cannot replace political activism and collective activity. Twitter does not warm the hearts of conservatives and reformists, monarchists and republicans, left and right, but it certainly warms the hearts of project-takers and fund-takers 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 needs more discussion, prevents healthy activism because dialogue does not form there and for dozens of other reasons. However, what I want to conclude here is that Twitter has changed the atmosphere and space of politics governing Iran.
Politics in Iran has become Twitterized, meaning in a word, more radical. Individual actions have taken precedence over collective actions, and populist approaches have been strengthened. Meaning exactly what we see on Twitter is seen in society, albeit in a more diluted form. Of course, other factors have also contributed to this situation, and societal changes should not be seen as having a single cause. This environment can be changed, provided we first correctly understand the mechanisms that have caused it.