“So I write columns for LitReactor, and I recently wrote a column called Writers Don’t Need Social Media. Shortly after, another writer over there published an article called 10 Things I Learned Editing an Anthology in Three Weeks and had this to say:
Social media is crucial
I’m not here to fight you, especially because you probably saw this on social media. In fact, one of my favorite things to do is ignoring think pieces about how writers don’t need social media…that I see writers sharing on social media. I tweeted my desire to make this antho a thing. People on social media reacted to the idea. I got publishing offers and landed a publisher through social media. I put the submission call out on social media (it racked up half a million impressions). The antho came out and was the #1 new horror release on Amazon for a couple days and then went back to the top later, and all we did was promotion on social media. Anyway, you know where I’m going with this: don’t trust people who tell you (on social media!) that you don’t need social media.
Because he’s not there to fight me, I figured I’d just say something contrary here instead.
I’ll start with this: I’m not arguing that this writer is a bad person, uses social media badly, and I’m not here to argue with his success.
My argument has to do with the common advice given to writers in this moment: You can’t be JUST a writer. You need to be a writer/marketer/graphic designer/editor/gladhander/everything. And therefore: You need social media to be a writer.
First things first, there’s the accusation that writing about social media and posting about that writing on social media is hypocritical.
If you want to stop people from smoking, is it hypocritical to put anti-smoking messages on packs of cigarettes? Because if you’re successful, fewer people will use cigarettes, and your message will no longer have a vector? Or maybe the concept is that it’s hypocritical because in order to talk about social media, to the people you need to reach, you have to acknowledge that social media is powerful?
I don’t agree. I think it’s ironic. I’m not totally sure that this sort of thing works, either. Does the anti-gambling pamphlet work in the casino? The suicide hotline number in the motel room? I don’t know, and I tend to doubt it. But I’m damn sure that a message about not using social media must appear on social media in order to reach its audience.
I mean, you have to put the material in a place where the people who need it will find it.
I was in a city park a couple days ago, and there were several signs up around the playground that suggested activities to do with your kids. It was heartbreaking. Because the signs amounted to “Pay attention to your child instead of sitting on your phone.” One said something like, “Talk to your child and hug them. This makes them feel special and secure.” Those signs are at the park because that’s where the behavior happens. That’s the moment of opportunity. That’s the audience everyone is trying to reach.
All that aside, it’s important to note the argument in use: tu quoque, or appeal to hypocrisy. What this does it point out the hypocrisy of someone on one side of an argument rather than addressing their argument. For example, I could make a compelling argument about renewable energy, and you could say, “Perhaps, but Pete just drove her in a gas guzzling sports car!” This may be true, but does it negate the argument? Does it even address it?
I can be the biggest social media user/abuser of all time and still make good arguments for it’s bad effects. In fact, as someone who uses it in my 9-5, I’d argue that I have an excellent idea of just how terrible it can be.
Here’s my big point: People need to hear that you don’t HAVE to use social media to be a writer. They need to hear it’s an option, and it’s one that needs to be considered carefully.
Lots of folks, writers included, have made sales they attribute to social media. But I’ve yet to see someone who creates a spreadsheet with a column that takes the pros and weighs them against the cons. In the cons category, your spreadsheet would need to assign a dollar amount to wasted time, work you’re doing for free for the social platform in the form of content creation, and of course, the hours you’ve spent in misery due to cruel, hurtful, even threatening tweets, DM’s, and reddit posts. If you’re anything like me, or most normal humans, you’ve spent at least a day here and there steamed about some stupid shit on social. What is the dollar value of that day?
The writer of the other column makes a good point about publishing diversity, and that is a lot more difficult without the use of social media. BUT, something pointed out in Mr. Lanier’s book is important to know here.
Many of us may think twitter is wonderful because it’s a free tool, so movements like BLM can use it to improve, refine, and continue to go forward. But you need to understand something: When movements have social media at the core, the social media is not a solid core. It’s hollowing out the movement. Each tweet you send about the movement is a piece of data. Each tweet you respond to is a piece of data. As you tweet about the movement (and about anything else), the platform learns how to get your attention, it learns the weaknesses in your arguments, and it learns the things that piss you off. And you’ll see more and more of them.
Meanwhile, it encircles you and isolates you. You might think you’re connected to a vast movement, but the truth is, what Person A and Person B see of the movement on twitter, even if those two people are very similar, can be completely different. You don’t see what person B sees. You don’t know what they’re exposed to. When they come to their wild conclusions, you have no idea where those came from.
I don’t want to put words in the mouth of Mr. Lanier, but my interpretation is his book is that social media destabilizes and weakens movements by its very nature. Social media, when it’s available “free,” turns you, the individual, into a commodity. It’s sort of the cold, calculating version of someone churning out lousy BLM tshirts for profit: A movement on a social platform is commoditized, and once something is commercial, it’s no longer something you control. Your tweets, even if they’re intended to create positive social change, are work products that generate revenue for social media platforms in the form of data as well as bringing more users to the platform.
I don’t think this is evil and intentional, but I think it’s an ever-present side effect of the way social media is built.
I can see the argument that social media is helpful in reaching diverse writers to submit to an anthology as well as a diverse audience of readers. However, if we turn exclusive control over reaching diverse audiences over to social media companies, if we give in and say social media is the only way to do this, then we surrender that power to them. And they do not need more power.
Here’s my request: If you’re a writer, think about what you would do if you woke up tomorrow and social media was unavailable now and forever.
Would you give up and quit writing?
Doubt it.
So what WOULD you do? How would you sell books? How would you derive a mixture of joy and work-related satisfaction from writing without likes and comments.
Why not try that stuff? Give it a week. 30 days. Spend the time and money making something.”