X marks the rot

Petty, narcissistic, toxic, entitled, disingenuous, profane. Choose your epithet. Twitter (or ‘X’) is an invaluable forum for amplifying all these characteristics in people whom virtuous types like solicitors prefer to mute. 

George Orwell’s ‘two minutes of hate’ was disconcertingly prescient. Twitter ‘perpetually seethes with anger’, one commentator recently averred, ‘and a rise in aggressive engagements and pile-ons’. Add to the mix an oligarch owner whose pronouncements have veered to the far-right, and no wonder the liberal professions are suddenly fighting shy.

So are lawyers right to quit the platform? Many have. Noisily, in some cases. One Pump Court Chambers speaks for many refuseniks: ‘The recent changes on X... no longer resonate with One Pump Court Chambers’ principles,’ the set declared last month. ‘We believe in fostering a space for constructive dialogue, factual information and respectful discourse. Unfortunately, the current trajectory of the platform contradicts these values.’

I do not agree. At least not entirely. Twitter was hardly an unimpeachable beacon of enlightened civil discourse before Elon Musk appeared. The Guardian, that self-appointed arbiter of liberal propriety, was already lamenting the ‘era of the Twitter pile-on’ by 2019 – three years before the Tesla owner bought his new toy. ‘Isn’t there something healthier we can do with our rage?,’ the newspaper fretted.

Or consider this worrying report from broadcast channel CNN. ‘Twitter’s moderation isn’t working. People routinely post screenshots of death threats, hate speech or other violence.’ That’s from 2018.

Twitter has deteriorated, but here’s why no one should feel compelled to join the exodus.

First, ceding the battlefield looks like capitulation. The avatars of unreason need to be called out. The good fight needs to be fought.

Second – and let’s be frank – no other platform quite does the job. Not Mastodon, not Bluesky, and certainly not LinkedIn, which remains principally a forum for professional announcements (and a disagreeable amount of preening and humble-bragging, if you ask me).

Third, as lawgazette blogger Jonathan Goldsmith wrote this week (tinyurl.com/bdzm82pf), regulators and law enforcement are at last confronting the legal question of the responsibility of social media platforms for their content. Change is coming.

The Gazette will stick with Twitter. For now.