This change had many users in outrage on the platform, not wanting to see the affordances, or their imagined affordances, of the site changing. Though showing tweets in an algorithm would make it easier to know that you had seen everything you'd wanted to see without scrolling through the entire timeline, it would also make Twitter much more appealing to advertisers, guaranteeing that ads would be seen by a certain number of users.
Jack Dorsey, Twitter's CEO, was quick to try and squander these rumours, but left a bit of wiggle room by saying that the changes "were never planned for next week", allowing plenty of question to remain over whether the changes would be coming in the near future. 
On Februrary 10th, Twitter did unveil their algorithmic timeline, though it currently exists as an opt-in feature found within the individual user's settings.
Does an opt-in feature satisfy both the appeal to advertisers as well as the comfort and happiness of Twitter's current users? Is it a step toward a democratic space, allowing the user to decide how they want their timeline to operate? Or is it perhaps an indication that these changes will eventually happen without the choice to opt-in, only there for now to get users curious about what the new timelines would look like?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought up this example Katie! I thought the issue of #RIPTwitter was extremely interesting and relevant to our in class discussions, as it occurred just as we finished up the readings by Christian Fuchs.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Twitter has moved forward and does offer its users an algorithmic timeline, I felt as though both the opposition that Twitter faced via its platform to the idea of an algorithmic timeline, in addition to its implementation as an "opt-in" feature rather than a forced or "opt-out" feature creates an interesting troubling of Christian Fuchs' perspective on participatory democracy and social media. Through the use of the Twitter platform and the hashtag RIPTwitter, users were able to openly express their opinions regarding the algorithmic timeline, opinions that were both heard and responded to by the CEO of Twitter himself. Does this not demonstrate participatory democracy to some extent? Users may not have endless democratic freedom, as Fuchs’ arguments regarding the corporate colonization of the platform still remain valid, but can Fuchs' absolute claim regarding the participatory nature of social media really hold true in this instance? Although this is purely speculation, perhaps the ability for Twitter users to join together, using the affordances of platform to their advantage, led to the "opt-in" version of the timeline.
That being said, the opt-in feature does not necessarily void Fuchs' argument regarding the exploitive nature of the platform, but it does complicate his narrow argument. Does participation and choice have to be mutually exclusive to exploitation? Or can we best understand social media platforms like Twitter as exemplifying articulations of both exploitation and participation simultaneously? In my opinion, #RIPTwitter is the perfect example of the way in which choice and agency of the user, and exploitation, can coexist within a platform in varying degrees.
You raise an interesting point Katie. I suspect that this reaction from Twitter is actually exemplary of damage control. Adding an opt-in feature rather than listening to users is likely an attempt to curtail backlash rather than actually addressing the issue. It could be a possibility that moving forward this way is an attempt to acclimate users to the idea… which could then, as you suggest, transition to a point where use of the algorithm is opt-out instead of opt-in. Additionally the current arrangement could be beneficial for Twitter as it might be used as a testing period for the algorithm. It seems highly unlikely that Twitter will not move forward will applying the algorithmic approach as there is a financial incentive to do so where there is little for the current state.
ReplyDeleteSo to respond to your question: I think that the addition of an opt-in feature is actually a step away from a democratic space rather than towards it. Keeping in mind that Twitter was not democratic to begin with (due to centralized and opaque ownership/control), the addition of an algorithmic display strategy makes the space less democratic as it signifies the development of a selective public forum which is intrinsically tied to a profit motive. Actually addressing the issue would likely have involved scrapping the algorithm all together.
The change in algorithms to control feeds is a very interesting topic. It is a growing phenomenon on social media and we are now seeing it on other platforms such as Instagram. I argue that providing a choice with the opting in or out feature does not constitute a step towards a democratic space. The opt-in/opt-out feature limits the choice of the ways one can to view a Twitter feed to two very controlled and strategically structured algorithms. The opt-in feature filters out “less relevant” information, as defined by Twitter Inc, by adding more popular tweets to the top. The opt-out feature allows users to see posts in chronological order, but the interface and affordances of the platform are still controlled and designed by Twitter Inc. Whether you choose to opt-in or opt-out, the Twitter feed does not constitute a democratic space because of the level of control, structure and limitations of the Twitter feed.
ReplyDeleteAs Haley suggests, however, the Twitter feed is not the only source of information, and Twitter affords a certain level of democratic discussion through through hashtags and viewing tags of people. By linking to these pages individuals are able to view many different opinions about particular topics of discussion. Although the main feed is inherently restrictive and controlled by a centralized power, Twitter should not wholly be discounted in its potential to be partly democratic.