|
‘Follows’ are not endorsements. Or are they?
Have you ever unfollowed someone’s social media account because you don’t want to be seen as their follower?
I know three people who did this just last week. They unfollowed a popular anonymous user on Twitter because they didn’t want their ‘follow’ to be misinterpreted as an endorsement of the content the user posts. How bad is this content, you wonder? It looks like a fine blend of misogyny, extremism, and disregard for mental health issues–among other things regressive, with a smattering of crypto- and web3-related gyaan for garnish.
“Some posts [on this account] are indicative of a hidden agenda to spread hatred against certain communities,” says Sindhu Biswal (@sindhubiswal), a biz dev professional at an AI-based startup in Bengaluru. “It seems a lot of under-24-year-olds follow that account which makes it even more problematic,” he adds, referring to the fact that younger people, who are eagerly looking for mentorship, may not always have the diversity of life experiences required to understand that the account is subliminally promoting misogynistic ideologies under the garb of imparting life wisdom.
Sindhu is among the recent unfollowers of this account that currently has over three hundred thousand fans across Twitter and Instagram. He remembers following it a few years ago based on something philosophical the account had posted back then. I will refrain from mentioning the account name so as not to give it another platform for publicity.
A lot of us happily hit ‘follow’ to subscribe to strangers’ updates on social media because of one interesting thing they say or do which appears on our feed through algorithmic connections. And even if we do a quick check of their recent content (which is rare, to begin with), it’s not easy to detect a bad apple unless you eat it. In Sindhu’s case, he says he barely saw tweets from this account after following, perhaps due to the algorithm again.
Last week, I asked him what he thought of this account and its content since he was one of the 21 mutuals (people I follow among the followers of this account). It led him into giving the user’s timeline a thorough look, ultimately resulting in an unfollow. Sindhu says this exercise made him realise he should take his ‘following’ list seriously.
Why make a big deal out of something as inconsequential as a follow on social media, you ask? I would argue we don’t talk enough about it.
‘Follows’ are used as a major currency on the internet, often leaving an impact on our lives in the physical world as well. People brag about it in their bio if they are followed by an influential person online because they know it adds to their clout and often opens up opportunities. The anonymous account in question runs online courses on how to amplify your social media following, for instance. Automated accounts curate whom the who’s who of the B2C industry follow or unfollow in real-time. One such account, BigTechAlert, has close to 50,000 users tracking such updates from the world of startup and tech.
Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram have settings whereby you can restrict replies to your posts, allowing only your followers/connections to directly engage with them. Until last year, Clubhouse, the audio-only social network, gave a more prominent visual display to listeners in a room if they were followed by any of the speakers onstage [I don’t know if that has changed now, haven’t used Clubhouse in a while].
When popular celebrity accounts unfollow someone on social media, it makes headlines. Whether you like it or not, you make a statement every time you follow or unfollow someone. How much attention this statement gets is directly proportional to how big a phenomenon you are on the internet or in your social circle.
In this case, for instance, the anonymous account has been the talk of the e-town for a few years now because it is regularly hyped by a popular Indian entrepreneur. That’s how Idi Srinivas Murthy (@IdiSrinivas), a veteran marketer, discovered it in the first place. “His tweets and the comments underneath are fantastic samples of consumer behaviour,” says @IdiSrinivas who also unfollowed the account after I approached him about it last week. “The good stuff this user posts on natural food, discipline, exercise, etc, gets some likes and comments. But what gets a lot of engagement is the misogynistic stuff, deepening the legitimacy of those views," he notes. Our conversation led him to consider a “housecleaning” of his ‘following’ list.
Whom you follow on the internet is an online manifestation of whom you want to be seen with, says Karthik Srinivasan (@beastoftraal), a communications and personal branding consultant. In his workshops to clients, most of whom are CXOs, Karthik proactively tells them not to be seen as following someone who is crude, abusive or posts vile, hateful content. [The first thing he tells them is to not be seen as exhibiting crudeness themselves, of course.]
Most often, suits tell him they did not think about this facet of social media following until he brought it up. “I don’t think people think on those lines as much as they should. But the other person, who sees you liking, retweeting/sharing or replying to such handles online, or as a mutual among the followers of a problematic account, has that in their mind and often forms a perception of you based on that,” he says. We also tend to follow accounts when we see a lot of mutuals are already following them. It imbues trust in the most basic manner.
He also clearly distinguishes between the mere difference of opinions versus visibly problematic content; that is, you can follow and engage with people who do not think like you, but the bar should be stringent for people who vocally abuse, and are visibly vile, crude, or misogynistic.
If you continue to follow someone after being shown their vile side, you do in a way give them a “badge of approval”, says Karthik, citing the unhinged behaviour of certain social media users who brag about being followed by top political leaders of the country.
The popular entrepreneur mentioned above has received backlash from multiple women and a few men in the startup ecosystem but continues to engage with the infamous anonymous account. “This kind of behaviour is both irresponsible and unfortunate,” says Karthik.
Late last year, Shruti Chaturvedi (@adhicutting) openly called this anonymous account out on Twitter for its misogynist content. Soon after, she noticed that a venture capitalist (VC) she knew professionally, someone who is known to be an ardent follower of the anonymous account, had blocked her on the app.
That some of the top male VCs and “startup bros” continue to follow the account without ever objecting to its repeated calls of “using women as reproductive machines for the betterment of society”, leaves you with no option but to believe that they are in silent agreement with those views, she says.
“I wouldn’t want to follow such people for their intelligence or have them on my company’s cap table if this is how they think about women,” she adds. Shruti is a marketing communications professional who runs a digital-media platform.
This isn’t a one-off incident. In the last few months, I have seen at least five instances where people have called out a user, who regularly posts problematic stances on social media, as well as admonished their mutuals for following said account and validating its existence.
Last month, Pranav Dixit (@PranavDixit), a technology reporter for BuzzFeed News, tweeted that, @TweeSurfing, an account affiliated with Twitter India that advocates using the platform for “positive social change”, is actually following an account that “repeatedly violates Twitter’s rules on dehumanising speech”. “I was highlighting yet another example of Big Tech platforms not enforcing their own policies in India,” says Pranav. “@TweeSurfing following an account that openly tweets hate speech and violates Twitter’s own rules about dehumanising speech shows that Twitter is aware of these accounts but chooses not to enforce its own policies for reasons it knows best,” he adds.
Now, for some people, following problematic accounts could also be an occupational hazard as it may be critical for them to be seen as an important client’s follower on social media. Additionally, “I wouldn’t judge fellow journalists for following whoever they want,” says Pranav, as “it literally comes with the job.” That said, a lot of us journalists I know (including yours truly) are now moving to creating private lists on Twitter or using Tweetdeck columns to follow someone’s posts without actually following their account. No reason why everyone who means well– and claims to follow problematic accounts out of curiosity or to selectively consume the good stuff–cannot adopt this practice, too.
That said, I also realise this could feel overwhelming on top of everything else that social media dumps on us. As the iconic dialogue from Andaz Apna Apna (1994) goes: “Aise hi itni pareshaniya hai. Raveena kaun Karishma kaun... uss musibat se nikle nahi... ab ek nayi musibat... Uncle Kaun!”
Andaz Apna Apna (1994)/Ultra Movies
Simply put: There’s enough conundrum around how to behave online to add another layer to it.
Some of us have a few hacks to find a solution every time we feel conflicted. Karthik asks himself what will his daughter think of him if she sees him following a problematic account on the internet. Shruti draws the line (and instantly unfollows) when a user “campaigns to deteriorate any community’s basic rights and dignity”. I try to imagine how it’d feel to be the target of vile, misleading and hateful content and that generally helps me decide whom I do not want to legitimise by adding to their following.
What we’ve realised through this process is that quality-check of the people we follow on social media is essential now. But it is also an ongoing process. And we continue to make mistakes.
|
By Shephali Bhatt
