Oh hi. Let’s look at this bullshit article on the BBC website, shall we? First of all it’s on the BBC so you’re like oh wow it must be a big deal.pic.twitter.com/H1FlH9T7WY
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
You can construct any fucking narrative by scouring the internet for people claiming something. It doesn't make it relevant. It doesn't make it true.
This is another tweet cited in the article. Eight digits in the handle, fewer followers than I have toes. Gets to represent a "side" in a "controversy". Have we learned nothing from the past few years? Is this really the best we can do?pic.twitter.com/pa7KVKSeYL
We could go on of course. When Piers Morgan dusts off his laptop to plug the week's trending topics into his trusted word document DailyMailPCCultureRantTemplate.docx for his weekly Daily Mail diatribe, the DM uses two tweets to illustrate the article. 13 followers. 4 followers.pic.twitter.com/2I7xsJlef2
And here is Time Magazine. That boycott link? Some dude with 71 followers.pic.twitter.com/FJzXL1Mwuo
None of this is fucking real. It’s an entirely made up thing. It’s Piers Morgan, four people with 9 followers and a Russian bot.
This isn’t to say it can’t *become* real. These things can snowball. But journalists pushing this duality as a reality are hurting us.
Just a few final points before we let the thread die a well-deserved and long-overdue death. This is one of those websites that push dubious content. This article has been shared thousands of times on Facebook, into the feeds of thousands more. It links to the BBC “report”.pic.twitter.com/ql1pFWCjqQ
So my focus on follower-count was less “high-follower essentialism” as someone put it so beautifully, but rather an attempt to show that we have no way of knowing if these accounts are real much less in good faith. And serious news organisations should not rely on this shit.
Because an ignored tweet from an account with 18 followers (that has now vanished) should not be a journalist’s core argument on the BBC website, and certainly not be proof of a “major backlash and a wide boycott”.
Note I have no opinion on the ad, its message, the number of dislikes on youtube or whatever. Just that we rely on journalists to make things clear, to separate truth from lie. This twitter-searching to prop up predefined notions and narratives just adds to the noise. OK, fin.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.