The Chaotic Language of Art

A friend asked for help promoting an “amazing and underrated artist” on display at a Dallas museum. Over coffee, we crafted a press release for Igor Samsonov‘s exhibit. I’d never met or heard of Samsonov before, but his work was indeed amazing.

The visual depth of every painting is striking. Scenes and subjects have an appearance reminiscent of songs. Rather than telling a story as a movie or book does, they evoke emotion, showing a story’s undercurrent. If you know the story, you can’t help recognize it, if not, you are cognizant of a deeper meanings existence.

After the press release went live, I thought the manic time-crunch favor was complete and went back to a normal day of work. I’d learned no great lessons, and met no new people, but that’s not a good story…

A Good Story

The next day I get a call. The press release we’d written had also written a check my friend couldn’t cash. He’d announced a live-streamed Q&A with Samsonov, and need help. It was an unplanned adventure that went astray of all expectations I had. The day of the shoot, the ideas incubated at an insane speed.

With no clear plan, differing expectations, personalities, and goals from various involved parties meant production was a little wild. What I thought would be a live stream in the style of the NY Times Live Illustration series. Became a request for an early 90s Oprah style walk-through the museum, that sounded like a walking shot from The West Wing.

It’s been years since my day job was video production – first real love or not – and I was a one-person crew. So my running and gunning live stream, with a rented Steadicam and a mobile hotspot, in a massive open museum, featuring two unscripted people wasn’t going to happen. Eventually, we ended up with several short interviews of Samsonov taking a deep dive into his works.

Limits of Expression

Due to some of the reasons I stated above, the interviews took longer than expected. A takeaway from the pandemonium, you can’t push your limits of knowledge, and language at the same time.

I spent much of the day with Samsonov. He’s undoubtedly fluent in English, and an incredibly good-humored and gracious man. But English wasn’t the language he used over the six years spent earning a graduate art degree at Ilya Repin Leningrad Institute for Painting. As he put it even in Russian he’s pushing himself to articulate the meanings behind his paintings.

After recording for the majority of the day in English (mostly). I asked to shoot one of my favorite paintings again, in Russian with the interpreter. It was among my favorite of Samsonov’s paintings, and also my favorite interview of the day.

I feel it’s very fitting “Salome’s Dance” was shot twice that day. Salome is a frequent theme in Samsonov’s work, he’s painted her 5 or 6 times in various, positions, compositions, sizes, and formats. He even painted this concept twice, First in 2014 with the painting “Salome III”.

The above images reflect the difference between the two Samsonov paintings. However, the inability to control and match lighting conditions exaggerates some of the differences in color, and paint texture. The Book about Igor was written by David Salomon

PR Advice

If you wanted a PR lesson from this, check out these posts I’ve written in the past.

6 Tricks PR Professionals Use to Get Press
What Milton Friedman Taught Me About Guest Blogging
How to Get Press for Your Startup

You May Enjoy

Whatever Tragedy Just Occurred, I Don’t Assume You Approve

Tragedies happen. Every single day something terrible happened someplace.

Some tragedies are of a variety that go viral. A school shooting, a crime motivated by race. A lot of things in a state with bizarrely open public records that creates nearly self-writing headlines. None of these are good things.

And You & I agree; the terrible thing is terrible. What’s more, I know we agree even without talking with you. If someone came up to me and said, – You were thrilled about the thing that just happened – I wouldn’t believe them. I would never believe an accusation like that without evidence.  

I’m saying this because; In the wake of a trending tragedy, I’m used to seeing the social web light up with a flood of people clarifying they disapprove. As if in the absence of clarification that they believe the heinous act was heinous others will believe they wanted it.

I think that we feel powerless, because in many ways, at least in the immediate moments after a Dante Alighieri style comedy, we are unable to do anything… So we post. We share that we don’t agree with the indefensible thing, we get likes, and comments and we feel a sense of power return.

Sometimes public outrage holds powerful people accountable. But that is not what is happening here, is it?

The posts online, they aren’t a rallying cry against someone who abused and will continue abusing their position; are they? Is anyone responsible for this even alive?

Is the collective outrage fueling a machine that makes lone lunatics famous? One where cable news shows the body count as a video game graphic, counting up.

Will the vile person responsible be put on the cover of a magazine, like some kind of rockstar? Will reporters talk like it was a game of duck hunt… “it’s almost a world record for the most deadly of its kind…”

Is our outrage putting a villain on a pedestal for other unstable people? Will the ill and evil come to the understanding that their feelings of powerlessness can become a voice that will be noticed? That by causing enough harm, they can set public discourse for a news cycle?

I can’t tell anyone what they should be doing. I don’t believe I have the answers. But I think it’s worth asking, why are we doing this?

The rush of dopamine from social likes, giving us a small sense of power when we feel weak after a tragedy… Is that the same rush, as the ones felt by those perpetrating these tragedies?

We are not committing violent acts. But are we, in some way, part of the problem?

Header Image “Divina Commedia” by naevus


PS. The header images remind me of a Samsonov painting.

In A Decade, Devices of Twenty Years Ago Will Be The Hot New Gadgets

This post was originally published on Business 2 Community by Mason Pelt. It’s syndicated it here to maintain a record of guest posts.

In ten years, devices from twenty years ago will become the hot new gadgets of the day. They will be improved, shinier, and better with technology advancement. But limited function devices, that just play music, help you navigate or wake you up in the morning will be all the rage. Not only among the same people currently buying 8 track tapes, but by everyone.

That’s my prediction, and I make it from a place of frustration. There’s been a departure from building technology that better serves its users to seeing how many features one object can have. WiFi enabled toaster, Bluetooth coffee machine, smart hairbrush; all things that really exist and I can’t think of a reason they would improve the lives of users.

My phone is a flashlight capable of playing Pac-Man. It’s a compass pointing at both true North and where people are outraged today. How I access my plane tickets, and how the NSA knows who I’m meeting when I land.

Phones do so many things; you almost forget that glowing rectangle is a communications device. You forget until feeling a slight twinge of annoyance and anxiety when an unknown number interrupts the music you’re playing.

Humans seem to adapt to their ambient threat level, and I realize how fortunate I am that anonymous callers interrupting a Tom Waits marathon are where I find my angst. However, I’m not the only one in this boat.

When mp3 players first came out, they had problems, skipping, miserable battery life and more. By the time stable, reliable mp3 players were available affordably, phones were taking their place. But even the early flawed mp3 players weren’t interrupted by calls… In a way wasn’t the old technology better then what replaced it?

Cramming every possible function into a device doesn’t make that device better than the sum of its parts. Swiss Army knives are a multi-function tool; a blade, a wood saw, a bottle opener, screwdrivers, corkscrew, wire stripper, and awl. Every one of these tools is inferior to a standalone version.

I use alarms, timers, and the stopwatch on my phone every day, and I don’t own an alarm clock. But while a hybrid watch timer makes a lot of sense, an alarm clock that allows others to summon you at a whim is counterintuitive, even if we all use them.

Convenience lets the Swiss Army knife do in a pinch, but it’s not ideal. For the most part, people who routinely need a screwdriver won’t hold off on buying one because they own an amazing all in one tool that lets them feel like Batman.

People in a decade will totally still buy phones able to accidentally photograph them on the toilet. And much like a Swiss Army knife, most of the extra functions will do in a bind. But I expect to see more people buying, and relying on limited function tools that serve their needs. Not just relying on one expensive device that, kind of, does everything.

Alarm clocks and mp3 players are cheaper and at least as good as they’ve ever been. Maybe now is the time to move away from our phones being the magic glowing rectangles receiving our undivided attention. We’re spending our days staring at our devices, like Theodore Twombly in a version of the movie Her, where the technology makes you sad and angry.

Header image by stephen4 / Pixabay

Default Diet Advice

First, understand a calorie deficit is the only reason you will lose weight. Second, understand that fat, carbohydrates and proteins can all be converted to adipose tissue. If you cut carbs, or fat and lost weight it was because of a calorie deficit, not magic.

But I ate 3,000 calories of only meat daily for a month and lost a ton of weight!

Some People

Protein has more of a thermic effect – than carbs and fat – meaning you burn more calories turning protein into energy than carbs to energy. That doesn’t change fat loss from being about calories in versus calories out, it changes your default caloric burn.

But I only at 1600 calories a day and didn’t lose weight.

Other People

If you restrict calories, your body tries to conserve energy. If your NeAT (Nonexercise Activity Thermogenesis) rate changes this also doesn’t change how calories work. If you consume fewer calories, and also burn fewer calories, you don’t lose weight.

Peoples NeAT rate is a reason they lose weight when prescribed amphetamines. It’s also the reason professional fighters tend to blink slowly when they weigh in.

Now that I have the “there are no magic foods that don’t count” ranting out of the way.

My Advice: Control calories, protein & fiber

Calculate how many calories you should be eating to lose, gain or maintain weight. A lot of calculators exist online, I’m not going to endorse one and the formula is a bit complex to write out.

I recommend getting 0.8 – 1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean mass, yes, you can get by with less. But high protein diets tend to be more satiating and even 1.2 grams per pound of lean mass is not close to the proposed maximum anabolic effect of protein.

For Fiber get 15 grams per 1,000 calories. If you eat meat, eat fiber along sided it, because that seems to lower the increase in colon cancer resulting from red meat consumption.

But what about…

Note: I’ll update this post-overtime with more types of diets and questions that are frequently asked about.

Keto?

I like the way I feel on a ketogenic diet. Also, keto seems to have major positives for those with (or at risk of) Alzheimer’s, Epilepsy, and Cancer. That said, keto is not magic for fat loss.

I won’t go into depth on keto safety, but most of your body’s tissues are conditional glucose users, and can be fueled on ketones. Most humans bodies can create more than the 100 grams (or so) of glucose needed for your central nervous system and red blood cells.

If you try keto, feel good and don’t feel overly restricted, Do it. But don’t start saying crazy things like: “Your body is better at burning stored fat in ketosis.” Or “The human body can’t turn fat into stored fat.” both are untrue.

Header Image by p_a_h

Play Bigger, Book Review

In an older post, I claim most marketing books suck. I stand by this; Most marketing books are garbage, rehashing other, older books, written to convince big companies who can hire consultants, to hire the authors.  In that post, I quote Play Bigger: How Pirates, Dreamers, and Innovators Create and Dominate Markets — because it’s the most recent marketing book fitting my description that has crossed my path.

The premise of Play Bigger is that you have to define a category to be successful. The authors of the book attempt this in their work by rebranding old marketing concepts. Positioning by Al Ries and Dr. Philip Kotler is a far better book. Positioning came out nearly 40 years ago and is relevant still.  By contrast, Play Bigger was published in 2016 and feels outdated.

Play Bigger is written by four people (Al Ramadan, Christopher Lochhead, Dave Peterson, and Kevin Maney), and it feels like it. The book is written with multiple, distinct voices, some of whom own a company that offers a “…standardized category design process that is tailored to meet the needs of companies of all stages.”

This is not the worst book I’ve read on marketing. Also, the authors seem to be well read; I respect that. Many of the books referenced by this book are worth reading; This one isn’t.

It Reads Like an Infomercial for Something I Already Own

Not unlike an infomercial showing a crappy version of a product you already own, the book stretches reality a bit with some claims to make its point. Bing in 2017 held 18% of the search market share in the US earning 3.2 Billion in revenue (1.3 billion in profit), but it’s a failure because it doesn’t define its category.

Another example. This book gives a possible explanation of why Apple’s iPad was a success while Microsoft’s tablet PC’s failed. The reason, Apple defined a new category sitting between a laptop and smartphone. Microsoft just made a tablet that ran Windows XP. I inferred from the book the Tablet PC was also an unholy abomination to both god and man.  But the book is steadfast that products don’t matter, its all about positioning… I mean “category design”.

The creation of a new category was the reason for Apple’s success and Microsoft’s failure. The cult of personality surrounding Steve Jobs, the fact iPads were a better product (at the time); Apple being very much a status symbol, closer to a luxury brand than a tech company, etc. Those weren’t factors, it was all about the category. Maybe Microsoft should hire the consulting firm behind the book?

Selection Bias

As with most marketing books, companies analyzed in Play Bigger are (almost all) already on top. If you pick the biggest companies in a market segment, are they the “category king” because they defined the category at the start, or do they currently define the category because they are the top dog?

To the credit of Play Bigger, they do provide analysis that proves their points. However, the probes into the success of Google, Facebook, Salesforce & Apple at the very least, feel to me like a bad marketing report. In a bad report you:

  1. Create a narrative
  2. Find examples that support that narrative
  3. Ignore nuanced arguments against the narrative you created
  4. To seem fair, address strawman arguments that contradict your narrative

The author defined categories major companies occupied are also a substantial fudge factor influencing the book’s conclusions. Bing, could be a non-successful search engine, or the first ever “decision engine”, dominating the space it is in with 100% market share. DuckDuckGo, a profitable but small company, could be called a failed search engine, or the dominant player in privacy-conscious search. I could category define all day, and crown nearly any company a “category king”.

Who Likes This book?

The best thing I’ve found said about this book was said by Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce a company consistently praised in the book. Benioff said “Every entrepreneur looking to alter the landscape and every CEO looking to reimagine their business can learn from this book. Play Bigger provides inspiration and a framework for building companies that transcend gravity.”

Of course, Benioff loves the book “Salesforce” and “Marc Benioff” are mentioned 80+ times in this book. If I and my company had been praised on this level; I would give highlighted copies to all the stakeholders, my mother, and all relationship prospects. I may even have hired its authors as consultants.

And now; Now you have the information to understand why most marketing books are crap.

I’ll Now Defend This Book, a Little

The book isn’t all bad. The advice is something any savvy company will think of as market positioning. Every single company that isn’t doomed to fail has to think about positioning. Many companies will create new categories, but it’s not an automatic failure when a company doesn’t create a new category. I’m sorry, that’s just a flawed idea.

A point this book raises, validly, I’m sad to say. Is that markets seem hungry for one major player in each category. That’s true, in part driven by access to capital. VC’s seem less willing to invest in ideas when a hugely successful company already dominates a category. And, Investors will sell stock in publicly traded companies, the second Amazon sends out a press release hinting the giant may step into an industry.

The handful of insights, like the one above, aren’t worth slogging the swamp of self-promotion. If you want those kinds of insites you’re better off reading The Four by Scott Galloway.

At one point, the “players turned coaches” bemoan the days before “category design”. The days they speak of, are days when positioning, and market placement were taught in business schools.

Final Thoughts

The authors of this book did not create a new discipline. The book teaches little or nothing new. Certainly nothing so original that you couldn’t find it elsewhere. It suffers heavily from bias analysis and it reads like a sales pitch. Play Bigger isn’t the worst book on marketing, but it’s still an archetype of a bad marketing book.

P.S. 
This is only my opinion. It’s possible for knowledgeable and intelligent people to disagree with me, but I think most won’t. The idea that people don’t have to agree with you, is something Play Bigger would have done well to acknowledge in the book; Instead, it takes the hard-line stance that anyone on your team who doesn’t buy into the concept of positioning (as defined by this book) should be fired from the team.

The above, almost cult-like stance is especially odd since most of the examples in the book touted as success did not follow the category design prescribed by Play Bigger. I’ll combat this book one last time. Elvis isn’t necessarily the king of rock and roll because he created a new category, a solid case can be made that he stepped into a spot Chuck Berry created.

Did Elvis dethrone a “category king” rather than creating a new category? I don’t know, but I also didn’t write a book claiming that category creation is the only way to succeed.

Header Image by Editor B

Not Every Company Is A Tech Company

MIT, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, and others are declaring every business is a tech company now.

Technology is pervasive in all businesses and saying “every company is a tech company” makes a sexy headline. It’s like the new version of pronouncing email dead; while untrue, it’s easy to build a case for the claim.

I’m sitting here with a several-year-old Laptop and phone. Either device gives me way more computing power than NASA had in 1969 when they successfully sent a manned mission to the moon.

If I could go back in time with fully working, (magically internet connected) technology of 2019, I would be beyond the level of any computer scientist in the 40’s. I could do things none of them could dream of…

“Mr. Turing I’m just letting the Watson API figure out this code, you can take a nap.”

That’s not because I’m a technical wizard. A toddler can work an iPad, but Sir Isaac Newton certainly couldn’t have built one. The fact technology has progressed does not mean everyone is a computer scientist. We all have access to huge amounts of data, but we are not all data scientist.

IT Spending Will Increase

Yes, IT spending is going to increase, more companies will hire CTOs, CIOs, and consultants to pick the right technologies. Review sites and programmatic technology suggestions will be important to businesses of every size. But I can’t imagine it’s that different from every historic change resulting from new technologies, like the telegraph or the phone.

We have examples of businesses in most of recorded history. In most of that time, no examples of phones exist. After Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, a period of time when every business had a phone. And now we have reached a point where some business is don’t like giving their phone numbers out.

The most tech-savvy of companies seem to force contact through layers of automated chat systems. Eventually, perhaps a text conversation with a real person and maybe a phone call if at some point that person gives you their number. It probably will be their number, and it will leave the business with the employee. As more companies support a bring your own device plan.

If you mean every company is a tech company because they all have access to so much technology, that’s true. Every company has access to technology that could strike a 22-year-old Philip Emeagwali with awe. But most of that technology works with shockingly little training or original development.

Technology is Getting Easier

You don’t have to become an engineer to drive a car, and you don’t have to be a developer to build a website. In 2019 we have a plethora of what you see is what you get site builder options. I’m not a fan of most of them, but compare any website builder with an early 90s hand-coded HTML website. Not only are the sites easier to build, they are also notably better.

Not every company is now or needs to become a tech company. Everyone can use technology and have it be surprisingly painless. A toddler using the iPad is not a result of extensive training. The child is not a computer scientist. And even when companies in retail, real estate, and oil & gas invest in technology, they do not automatically become tech companies.

Header image by rawpixel / Pixabay

You May Enjoy



Should I Give Up Foods Tom Brady Does Not Eat?

I was sent an article about Tom Brady’s diet, with the question; “should I give up the foods Brady doesn’t eat?”

Listen to this post read by Mason Pelt.

Judging from the article, Tom Brady doesn’t eat a lot of things. Some, like white sugar and white flour, can be cut from most diets and be an automatic positive. But dairy, nightshades (like tomatoes, eggplant, peppers), and mushrooms don’t make as much sense to cut out. For example, eating mushrooms may reduce the risk of cognitive decline in seniors, but I digress.

Are Your LifeStyle & Biology Identical To Tom Brady’s?

Elite athletes do things normal people don’t. Not everything they do is the reason they are elite athletes. Floyd Mayweather drinks a lot of soda. There is some merit to drinking something high on the glycemic index and rapidly bioavailable after intense cardio. But a Pepsi after I workout is change number 403 on the list of things Mayweather is doing I’m not.

Brady is a great athlete, training hard, spending time in the sauna and focusing on sleep. So, are you Brady’s biological clone? Do you train as hard, sleep equally well and activate the same heat shock proteins as Brady? Are you still unable to match Tom Brady? Eggplant may be holding you back. For the rest of us, probably not.

With Brady’s, Mayweather’s or any other popularised diet or training plan, people want to try flashy bits that stick out. Fasted cardio, hours in the sauna and ice baths, bearly sound fun to a masochist. Huge gains drinking a soda after a workout and cutting out foods that are a small percent of your daily caloric intake gets people wanting to signup.

Should Tom Brady Avoid These?

White sugar, white flour, MSG, dairy, mushrooms, and nightshades are all off the Brady diet. The reported reason Brady avoids these foods is that they aren’t anti-inflammatory. inflammation is one of those words, people toss around under the assumption that all of it is bad. However proinflammatory cytokines appear necessary to build muscle.

The long-term use of OTC anti-inflammatory drugs can inhibit muscle growth in young, healthy individuals engaging in weight training. For the elderly, there was some evidence that NSAIDs improve muscle performance. This suggests there is some ideal level of inflammation for human athletic performance.

Nightshades

Ideal levels of inflammation aside, no evidence exists showing nightshades cause inflammation in humans. Some studies suggest some Solanaceae (the scientific name of nightshades) can lower inflammation.

Bell Peppers are known for their antioxidant properties. Apparently cooking bell peppers increases the antioxidant effects.

A meta-analysis of tomato consumption found that:

Among 72 studies identified, 57 reported inverse associations between tomato intake or blood lycopene level and the risk of cancer at a defined anatomic site; 35 of these inverse associations were statistically significant.

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 91, Issue 4, 17 February 1999

Mushrooms

Mushrooms, are anti-inflammatory and are known for neuroprotective and gastroprotective effects. I don’t fully understand a reason for Brady or anyone else to avoid all mushrooms. But allergies or taste preferences could be the reason.

Dairy

Dairy is associated with some inflammation, (again, not inherently bad). But let’s put that inflammation on a scale against this meta-analysis of 29 cohort studies, with 938,465 participants (93,158 mortality) finding lower all-cause mortality among those who eat dairy.

White Sugar & White Flour

Cutting something from your diet and replacing it with something worse, won’t help you. Removing white sugar and white flour from most peoples diet only helps if they are replaced with a. Nothing or b. Something better for you.

I tend to avoid sugar that isn’t in a fiber matrix (such as fruit) and I don’t eat white flour often. But if you control your calories, eat adequate protein and fiber, average people shouldn’t worry about eating a small amount of processed, nutritionally devoid foods that are highly enjoyable.

Header Image by made by light 

Should I Use Twitter? A 2019 Risk-Benefit Analysis Of Using Twitter

Periodically I try to make Twitter work for me, a productivity tool! Or if not productivity, a way to be informed, entertained… just to promote things I care about, perhaps? It’s failed for me, at the very least the way I was using it has not been working to any of these ends.

Productivity on Twitter

A Venn diagram of productivity and Twitter would have virtually no overlap. Not to say no upside exists from Twitter, I’ve made friends and had a few good conversations. But most interactions with any meaning or positive impact are a result of leaving the Twitter platform.

Like meeting someone in a crowded, unpleasant place full of angry people, but later chatting over coffee. Twitter is a meeting ground, not the place for discussion. It’s not even a good place to become informed.

Twitter is Real-Time (Irrelevant and Unreliable) Information

Being informed is a productivity tool; only when the information is correct and impacts your life or contains a truth that expands your mind in some way. Some of this exists on Twitter. But, I’ve forgotten how many times I learn something with no impact on my life is true, only to later discover it was false and feel a pressure to understand how everyone was duped.

An example I always point to; CNN did not accidentally air Porn during Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown.Within about 4 hours of a random account tweeting a photo depicting porn broadcasting on CNN it was reported in 20+ mainstream news outlets, and about 10 hours later pronounced a hoax.

I learned something, learned it was fake and learned why, all in real-time. Not only does this three-stage fake news cycle not improve my life, CNN routinely broadcasting porn, would not matter in my day to day life.

Because of the sources, expanding verification wouldn’t have prevented this story from spreading. Traffic-hungry websites benefited, they got the initial outrage clicks, and later the retraction & explanation of what happened clicks. Good reporters, who waited for comments from CNN, or the local broadcast hub, earned no traffic. Bad reporting got rewarded with eyeballs.

Be informed or be entertained? 

Nuance is the enemy of the humorous hot takes pushed by the Twitter algorithm. This Tweet from Jesse Walker sort of sums up this point.

With nearly any topic, you must choose, be funny or be informative. Doing both requires a level of wit and topical expertise most people don’t have when preparing a Ph.D. dissertation, or comedy album. This mix of skills is possessed by almost no-one using 280 characters, commenting on topics they know little about, directed to a general audience.

Twitter is not devoid of humor or information. But it seems Twitter as an organism, of users and algorithms. Favors, sensationalism, and attacks on famous people to thoughtful commentary or even pure jokes and photos of cute animals.

Distribution Roulette 

I have a small following, about 3,500, my average tweet (excluding when I tag others), receives about 130 impressions. 3.7% of your audience seeing something on a real-time platform is great when you have 100,000 or more followers. But 130 people are much less likely than 3,700 people to create follow on engagement that causes a substantial distribution.

The odds of anything I tweet receiving substantial distribution seems to require a. Tagging someone influential, b. Ads or, c. Luck. When I say luck, I mean that I tweet something, that resonates with several of the 130 people who will see it, at a time when they will have followers online who are also interested in the thing I shared.

The Story of My Top Tweets

  • Russell Brand Retweeted it.
  • Brent Spiner Liked and Replied to it.
  • Tim Ferriss Retweeted it.
  • Jack Dorsey Liked it.
  • The week Alex Jones was ban from Twitter, I donned an aluminum foil hat, and posted a video weaving a tapestry of conspiracy theories tying into every Twitter trending topic.

Yes, it’s possible to engineer some form of “viral” pickup, but why? Just getting impressions doesn’t translate to clicks or Followers, much less customers. It seems like Twitter is subject to the rich get richer, poor get poorer distribution in a lot of ways.

A Graveyard of Old Tweets May Dig Your Grave

Some portion of people dig up old Tweets to attack the author. I won’t say public shaming is never appropriate, but the looking for dirt in old Tweets seen with James Gunn, Sarah Jeong, and Kevin Hart offer seemingly little benefit to society. Certainly, the lives of Gunn, Jeong, and Heart would have been better Twitter-free even with the exposure and engagement the platform allowed them.

For, Kyler Murray, the University of Oklahoma quarterback who received the Heisman Trophy in 2018, homophobic tweets he sent in 2012 when he was 15 years old became a media frenzy. He apologized, his life seems unruined. But that unpleasantness was over a tweet I can’t imagine over a couple of dozen people saw between 2012 and 2018.

If these examples aren’t enough, Jon Ronson has a great Ted Talk, When Online Shaming Goes Too Far.

Times And People Change

In 2012, I lived 10 miles from Murray’s home town of Allen, Tx; there were a lot of adults in that area using gay slurs as an insult at the time. It’s not a defense of anything he said, but his tweet and subsequent apology reflect positive social change when it comes to LGBT acceptance. Look at the changing views on gay marriage over time as an example.

Some things are wrong and were always wrong even when commonly accepted. As an optimist, I think we are moving positively. I hope people 80 years from now, will be shocked by things today that are commonplace. The essay Virginia Woolf? Snob! Richard Wright? Sexist! Dostoyevsky? Anti-Semite! Does a better job of encapsulating my point than I think myself capable of here.

Going Forward

Twitter, doesn’t benefit my life at this moment, and I see far more risk of harm than possible benefit. This is without even going into the psychological harms like feelings of isolation associated with social media, and trolls.

It seems wises to use Twitter only as a sort of RSS and trackback tool since those have fallen out of favor. I’m sure I should never actively engage on the platform. I should probably just delete my account, But for some reason, I feel like sticking around. For now, I’m taking a break from Twitter, as I have with Facebook.

Header Image Twitter