Two bubble talk or comment sign symbol on blue background. 3d render.
Sometimes, you need a reminder about why a piece of technology is so useful.
After writing what was essentially an obituary about Twitter, I came across a leadership podcast with the well-known pastor and leadership expert Andy Stanley.
Honestly, it made me like Twitter a little bit more.
He was chatting with another well-known luminary in the leadership space named John Maxwell. These guys know what they are talking about and are gifted communicators and book authors. The entire chat is on YouTube right here:
It was a passing comment about Twitter that caught my attention.
Andy Stanley recently wrote a book about division and conflict, and he mentioned how he uses Twitter to do some of his research. He understands some people don’t like Twitter, but he’s a fan. “I love Twitter, I follow all kinds of people,” he said.
Stanley went on to explain a comment he read on Twitter and how it impacted his writing and thought process. The tweet he found had a nuance and an articulate expression that impressed him. “Problems can be solved where there can be a conversation with nuance,” he said a bit later in the episode.
That last comment floored me. Wait, is he really talking about Twitter? The Twitter I love to hate? Yes, and that is the great hope with the platform, especially as we enter a new period of time when Elon Musk might be actually purchasing the platform, and as we launch into a new political season in the coming weeks.
It also reminds me of one of my favorite quotes about social media, from the director and producer J.J. Abrams: “We live in a moment where everything immediately seems to default to outrage,” Abrams told EW.com not long ago. “There’s an M.O. where ‘it’s either exactly as I see it or you’re my enemy’. It’s a crazy thing that there’s such a norm that seems to be devoid of nuance and compassion….we knew every decision we made would please someone and infuriate someone else.”
I like that summary. It means Twitter has two options.
One is to allow nuanced discussions, to provide salient information and good research to help leadership experts like Andy Stanley and book authors like John Maxwell. The other is to let nuance lead to constant debate, the splitting of hairs over the fine points of any and every topic under the sun. Nuance is actually a positive word. It happens when we notice the nuance of music, or a great speech, or an artistic expression. Nuance means there is a subtlety of excellence and you have to look for it carefully.
Stanley was hinting at one of the great benefits of using Twitter.
You can find the nuance; it does exist. You can uncover some amazing truths, even with the character limits in place. I’ve seen countless pithy statements, short expressions of brilliance, and funny (and nuanced) jokes. I hate to admit it in public, but I love those BuzzFeed round-ups of the best Twitter jokes. They’re hilarious.
I hope that never changes. The other kind of nuance leads to splitting hairs and constant unnecessary debate. The sky is blue, but not really. Minor discrepancies are running rampant and ruin the entire experience. It seems to depend on who is tweeting and who is reading the tweets. Everyone loses when we only split hairs.
For now, both nuances exist. The positive kind exists, those golden nuggets that can help book authors express in only a few words something that can change your life. The other nuance is competing for our attention, championed by trolls.
Whether Twitter even survives depends on which nuance wins out.
