Monday, May 22, 2017

Much grief for nothing

Evan Williams, the (co?) founder of Twitter, Medium, and our own Blogger has recently apoligised for something.

That something, as per the Indian Express is:

It’s a very bad thing, Twitter’s role in that. If it’s true that he wouldn’t be president if it weren’t for Twitter, then yeah, I’m sorry

 I have nothing to say about Donald Trump or America: because I am not an American. You know, not my zoo, not my animals. Secondly, he won in an election and not a civil war! Thirdly, how can we be sure that Twitter was the tipping point?

I do have an issue with Evan apologising, though.

I strongly think that he or anyone else does not have to apoligise for making something good. Lots of people, companies, governments, celebrities, schools, NGOs and others communicate via Twitter. I am sure most of these communications are positive.

It is also possible that Twitter might be used for illegal and immoral activities. If that is true, Evan might want to apoligise for it as well. That is certainly his choice. But I strongly think it is not required.

Moreover, do we think if Twitter was not there, this electoral result would be any different? There are many, many websites and services and apps and whatnot. Twitter was just the easiest medium at that time to reach lotsof people!

Looks like Evan's guilt is only for the fact that he made a great website. I would be happy to make a tenth of the impact he has had on the world!

14 comments:

  1. Yeah, nothing to apologize for indeed. Anything can be used for corrupt purposes. If twitter alone let trump win than that shows how uninformed many voters can be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right.

      If Mr. Trump is as much of an idiot as people on the internet stay, this would really mean that most of his voters are stupid or got carried away.

      Delete
  2. It is not an apology. It is trying to please everyone – both Trump supporters and the people who hate him. Trump became popular during election time not because of Twitter. Television stations contributed more because they were reporting his every move. Someone said he got more $8 billion worth of free publicity from TV network.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This means Evan was trying to take undue credit while staying 'loyal' to the people using Twitter, blogger etc.

      Talking of TV stations, I have heard that most news on American TVs is watched on two channels: fox and CNN, and that one of thesebwas supporting Trump, the other Hillary.

      Delete
  3. May be it's the other way around. The way it's been said, i get the idea that he relishes in the fact that he has contributed, rather steered the elections through his creation (Twitter). Just my assumption, otherwise there was no need to put stress on it in the second line.
    It's like everybody says that nuclear bombs are bad for humanity but we may relish in the fact thar our country is one of the few nuclear powers on earth. This analogy should be understood in the context of massive scale of creation rather than the postive or negative side of what the creation is.
    Yes, social media is widely used in Elections to attract voters and i agree that television plays a pivotal role in it, the internet websites comes next in line. With the concept of smart Tv's, it is eventually leading to unification of the above two mediums of communication.
    **All of the above is my personal opinion and should not be taken as a fact.**

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow Navdeep, you wrote a blog post in your comment.

      >> It's like everybody says that nuclear bombs are bad for humanity but we may relish in the fact thar our country is one of the few nuclear powers on earth.

      I especially loved this line.

      Delete
  4. I don't think the apology was needed since anyone could use any of the social media platforms for bad reasons if they wanted to. I like Twitter, I use it a few times a week and it's interesting to see what people post on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the people creating and controlling social media think too highly of themselves.

      If they keep at it, they might end up as relevant as Sears or Nokia or BlackBerry.

      Delete
  5. If I can imagine myself in Evan Williams' place, co-designer of a ubiquitous medium with limited character-space, the appeal to a candidate who refuses to explain himself would distress me too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right. That would distress you and I am sure same is the case with Evan.

      The thing is, I feel one does not have to apologize for anything and everything related to him. I am sure Twitter must have been used for cyberbullying, but it does not mean he needs to apologize for that as well.

      Granted, apologizing might have lessened some of his guilt for some time, but it might also create an environment of fear of doing something new or risky.

      Delete
  6. Agree on the impact part. Twitter has contributed greatly for good or for bad to public discussion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right. And this exactly is the point: Twitter is just a social medium. It can only be as good as the people using it. It is not a rogue antibiotic that caused mayhem because the testing procedures were not compliant enough.

      Delete
  7. Dont you think there is a fundamental problem when someone else has to own the morality and ethics for the mistake they have not done? Where is one's own sense of moral behaviour? Social media like Twitter are platforms and its up to one own's diligence to use them responsibly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. The people without a sense of moral behaviour are enjoying, whilst those who have it are overcompensating.

      Delete