Twitter and the ego

Having my account suspended has prompted some mixed reflections

In January I published quite a lengthy ‘thought-piece’ here titled Twitter is the human condition, one which I had thought about for quite a while but which rather sank like a stone in the public eye. Some didn’t like how wordy it was. Someone else told me it told a few too many uncomfortable truths.

In it, I said,

There is something visceral about Twitter: something intrinsically human or even animal in its sociality. It’s inherently political: dangerous, unsettling; necessary.

This comes back to mind now that I have been suspended by Twitter and unable to access my account for six days and counting. The reason I have been given is that I have apparently violated its rules on threatening violence and harassment. This is on account of the following innocuous reply to the account FootyScran (which shows off good and bad examples of the food provided at football grounds) in which I attempted a joke about a massive burger at Basingstoke Town.

I did ponder just deleting the tweet, which had attracted zero attention other than this. However Twitter takes taking this step as an admission of guilt which might count against me in any future complaints. As someone with a public profile (albeit not massive) and as someone who criticises others who often think criticism of them should be illegal, I’m thinking this might not be a great idea. Also I am stubborn. So I appealed. And here we are nearly a week after with nothing having been done and my effectively having been removed from this large part of the public sphere.

However the situation is not all negative by any means. Indeed it has prompted some unflattering reflections, not just about the arbitrary power of Big Tech to control who can and cannot talk in public, but about my own compulsion to talk.