Tweet sense

June 2022

I have much enjoyed the fuss surrounding the proposed purchase of Twitter by gazillionaire Elon Musk; finally, there is something interesting to say about Twitter.

Perhaps it’s my lack of imagination or my grumpiness, but Twitter doesn’t work for me, and I don’t care who owns it. Oh, I read it from time to time and I will occasionally promote an Oldie-related thing (@webster007), but I wouldn’t miss it.

However, I did enjoy the fuss. When Musk announced his bid, Twitter’s board huffily said that it wasn’t interested. Then the shareholders quickly pointed out that Musk’s offer was the best opportunity to sell they’ve had for a while, and they’d prefer his cash to be in their pockets, not his, thank you very much.

You can’t blame them; you would have paid about $50 for Twitter shares when they floated in 2013; since then, they have rarely been worth that much and have paid no dividends. Taking Musk’s $53.20 must feel like a lucky escape.

I’ve never really seen the point of Twitter, and I suspect shareholders grabbing the Musk shilling have reached the same conclusion. In case you are unfamiliar with it, here are the basics: you join, anonymously if you want, and then you can publish short notes, pictures or videos. Anyone can see them, but those most likely to are people who ‘follow’ you, or those who look for the key words you have used – assuming they are not deemed inappropriate by Twitter’s sinisterly named ’Trust and Safety Council.’

In reality, however, when you look at Twitter you only see the latest few messages posted; to see more you have to scroll down for miles, in the vague hope that you might come across something worthwhile. If like me you don’t have that patience, the unread Tweets pile up, never to be seen.

It’s all very hit and miss, unless you give it your undivided attention all day and night which does not appeal.

Twitter is not even as popular as you might think. Fewer than 30% of people in the UK use it, and I bet that a decent proportion are like me and barely look at it. In the USA, home of Twitter, the numbers are worse: only 25% of the population has a Twitter account.

So, Tweeters can’t be representative of the population. The trouble is, some people think they are; Twitter’s influence is disproportionate in certain circles, notably the written and spoken media. When you hear a broadcaster saying that ‘online reaction is fierce’ they usually mean that a few people on Twitter have commented, some probably anonymously.

I recently heard a grizzled editor of a regional newspaper complaining that his younger writers think that they have desk jobs and can gather all local news and public opinion solely from social media. He said he spends much of his day chasing them out of the office to talk to real people, who are, of course, mostly not on Twitter.

So, who does Tweet? Some do it to promote their work; fair enough, I suppose – I’m in that category. Some companies impart information; your train is late, they have a new product. That’s all part of the warp and weft of commerce.

But most Tweeters do it because they love the sound of their own voice, and think others will, too. They would do well to remember Dr Johnson’s wise words: ‘No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money.’

So, I don’t think it matters much who owns Twitter. If you disagree, then you may be overestimating Twitter’s importance. Consider this: the main UK political parties have about 2.5 million followers between them. The footballer Cristiano Ronaldo has 100 million followers.

That’s how serious Twitter isn’t.