Dive 99: How X/Twitter shapes human behaviour
Hey, it’s Alvin!
Have you ever met someone who acted a certain way in one place, but who seems like a completely different person in another?
There are people I “follow” on the internet who have a YouTube channel, for example. On YouTube, they appear warm and kind-hearted. But on X/Twitter, they appear aggressively mean. It’s not just one person either.
It’s possible we underestimate the impact tech has on psychology. As someone who’s been designing software for over a decade with an educational background in human-computer interaction, this fascinates me. After all, if we want to avoid the ill effects of a technology while making the most of it, we should understand how its design influences us.
Today, I want to dive into how the design of X/Twitter influences human behaviour because it has a notorious reputation for being a cesspool.
1. The platform is people-centric
The first screen you see on any platform gives away most of what the platform deems valuable. X is no different.
The main feed of posts runs down the middle of the screen, drawing most of the user’s attention. But you’ll notice that each post is led by the name of the author. So, right away we know X focuses on people. Whereas sites like Reddit focus more on topics.
If you hover over a person’s name, you’ll get a card that shows a small blurb about them. That the word “follow” is mentioned 4 times shows you that X wants you to know that growing a following is important to the platform. This reinforces the idea that this is a people-centric platform. The content is just a way to grow a following.
Because this platform is people-centric, users block or mute people rather than (for example) topics. That means people are often either intentionally inflammatory knowing they’ll be blocked, or they willingly watch their words to avoid offending others out of fear of being blocked. The consequences?
It’s easier to divide people on X/Twitter. And it’s easier to form echo chambers. Division creates conflicts. Conflicts draw attention. Attention draws followings. So, it all feeds into growing the platform.
2. Posts are short-lived
The content matters so little, people rarely spend more than a few hours discussing a topic. For example, if I reply to a post that’s even just a few hours old, chances are good I won’t get a response. If it’s one day old? Forget about it.
I’ve had brief discussions with others, but most dialogues end after a few exchanges. And when I have to step away and return to it a few hours later, I won’t see any more replies.
All of this makes sense because the interface design makes it harder to follow a discussion thread than on other platforms.
And because you’re replying to a person and not a topic, others are less inclined to jump into “your” discussion. So, if you’re looking for an answer to a question, and the person you’re asking doesn’t have one, then… good luck to you. Because you’re less likely to get an answer than on a topic-focused platform. Like Reddit.
Not to mention the home feed is always beckoning.
There’s a constant stream of posts people will go off to read.
And to remain noticeable on the platform, you have to put out multiple tweets throughout the day, too. So, if you’re publishing for X, you’re not just busy replying to others’ posts. You’re also busy posting new stuff and replying to replies to your own content.
There’s just too little time and brainpower to engage in a lengthy discussion, which leads to my next point.
3. Posts are short
In part because chronic X posters have so much to do, their posts also tend to be short.
Yes, paying subscribers can post over 280 characters per tweet. And others can write multiple posts as “threads.” Most people don’t do that. After all, if a 200-word post gets as much engagement as a 200-character post, then why would you bother with the former?
But I also feel like the idea that tweets are short-lived lives in the back of everybody’s minds. That the home feed is constantly presenting fresh, but short-lived posts creates a fear of missing out.
But short posts lack context and nuance—two critical lynchpins needed for fruitful, constructive conversations. And sometimes the “curtness” of short posts can feel off-putting and mean, even if that wasn’t the intent. But it’s a little spark that can flare up an already inflammatory relationship, which I’ve seen many times in the few years I’ve been on the platform.
Short posts lack context and nuance, which often leads to misunderstandings. So, some people lean into this by posting sensational, misleading posts to “go viral.” After all, what better way to draw engagement to the post and platform?
I know better conversations can happen in direct messages. But it’s also telling that thoughtfulness happens behind closed doors in private chats. Out of sight, out of mind.
Putting it all together
The home screen is like a firehose, blasting consumers with posts constantly.
It incentivizes producers to publish new posts constantly to stay relevant.
It incentivizes consumers to stay glued to it because of FOMO.
After all, if you miss out on a post, engagement may be pointless after just a few hours. And because the constant feed of new posts draw everyone’s attention, there’s little to no time for thoughtful discussions or even nuanced posts.
Short posts lack context and nuance, which benefits virality, which draws engagement from inside and outside the platform. Attention-robbing posts trigger other producers to respond with more posts, feeding the home screen.
The cycle repeats.
This all makes even more sense if you know the history of the platform. Back when it launched as Twitter in 2006, it was designed for friends to share short status updates with one another. That’s why it was built on SMS technology, which had strict character limits. It was enough for status updates.
X/Twitter never changed at its core. Despite new features, it’s mostly used the way it always has been since it became popular. It’s still good for connecting people with brief, 280-character messages, but not much else. That’s why marketers love the platform.
A quick way to draw the attention of millions of people is exactly what it does well. I learned from content marketers that X is a great “top-of-the-sales-funnel.” But if you want to further a customer relationship, you need to take it off the platform. Because X is poor for relationship-building discussions that take more than a few exchanges.
And because X posts are so short-lived, marketers repost old content to stay relevant. Because search engines on and off the platform are awful for searching old posts. It’s part of the reason I don’t see X as a good “regular” blogging platform. I don’t see it as a good business strategy for X, either. But that’s a topic for another day.
But hopefully this gave you some insights into how technology can influence human behaviour. And how you can make better use of X without wasting your time on rage bait debates that go nowhere.
Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com or click “Message Alvin” below if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you.
Thank you for reading. Use X wisely. And I’ll see you in the next one.