Twitter's algorithms: play or get played

We live in our strange times. Times when a company can be the subject of intense media and regulatory scrutiny yet still report better-than-expected earnings and change its name to "Meta" (just wow). Times when Twitter can announce that its algorithm is partisan in its politics and that Twitter doesn't know why - and see this announcement fly relatively quietly under the media's radar.

Summarising its findings, Twitter's blog post said that its study found that "tweets posted by accounts from the political right receive more algorithmic amplification than the political left". That means users are more likely to see right-leaning posts in their timeline when viewing their tweets algorithmically.

In some ways, this is not an existential problem for Twitter. Just because right-leaning posts are more likely to appear in a user's timeline doesn't necessarily mean that the accounts behind these posts are more effective in their messaging or in "converting" anyone to their cause. Visibility doesn't necessarily come baked in with any form of persuasion. 

What it quite obviously does show is that right-wing and right-leaning users and media outlets know how to game Twitter's system better than their political rivals. And since Twitter is increasingly a large-scale MMO game in which users compete to be the main character, that ability to work the algorithm is equivalent to a power-up or unlocking new weapons. Right-leaning accounts start with the odds stacked in their favour. 

It's also worth considering what victory looks like in the Twitter wars (although I think of The Wire at this point: "You can't call this shit a war?" "Why?" "Wars end"). Victory for the right is generally to piss off as many people as possible and to get the mainstream media to report on the conflict in a way that sows the seed of discord and mistrust even further. 

And therein lies one of the significant issues with the findings of Twitter's research. We know that large portions of the media use Twitter to inform their reporting. Generally, this takes the form of using trending topics to inform reporting - most commonly "backlash against topic [x]". Or journalists use Twitter as an on-demand focus group, with individual tweets acting as a proxy for what "people" think about topic [x] or news [y].

Accounts that lean to the right (individuals or media outlets) currently drive this self-reinforcing feedback loop. The right is setting the agenda, and that agenda is conflict, mistrust and indignation. To quote The Wire again, "this game is rigged, man".

It's long been the case that Twitter is not a reflection of the real world. 80% of tweets come from 10% of accounts; only a tiny fraction of the population in the UK actively use it, and also, it's by far the easiest social media platform to abuse by setting up bots and sock puppet accounts. But the fact that an even smaller percentage of that minority is now responsible for driving much of the political agenda should be a red flag to any journalist or media outlet using Twitter to substantiate or inform its work.

It should also be a red flag for anyone working in comms. Social listening is pretty much Twitter listening unless you're highly advanced in your setup or data access. Any brand or business using Twitter to inform their thinking about their products and campaigns needs to do so with a Samin Nosrat sized helping of salt. 

There could also be opportunities here for the savvy, brave businesses out there. To dip back into quotes from The Wire for the third time, "the game is rigged. But you cannot lose if you do not play". Conflict is the fuel that keeps Twitter going. The right-left conflict is in plain sight, and the fault lines are in the public domain. There's room to use the right's mastery of the Twitter algorithm to push an opposing point of view. To take the "trigger Piers Morgan with something vegan" playbook and explode it for maximum coverage. To take a stand on a topic, be well-prepared for a backlash, and then ride the backlash to the forefront of audiences' attention. 

It's not as crazy as it might sound. The past few years have demonstrated that "if you're for everyone, you're for no one". The pressure is increasingly on businesses and CEOs to take a stand, choose a side, and back that choice with meaningful action. Savvy companies will look to do that while also picking up kudos and column inches. 

Just because the Twitter war doesn't end, it doesn't mean businesses can't achieve some victories.