The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Two Years Without Twitter
I am grateful I have not spent the last two dreadful years on Twitter.
On January 22, 2020, I decided to take a brief hiatus from Twitter. I made this decision shortly before the New York Times published my op-ed on impeachment. (Remember the first impeachment?!). I did not know how long my self-imposed exile would last, or whether I would have the discipline to stick with it.
Two years later, I am proud to be Twitter free. I still post links to my posts. I will click on a link to a tweet a friend sent me. And I occasionally use the direct messaging feature. But I never scroll through the timeline. I never check my notifications. If you've @'d me over the past year, I haven't seen it. If you've screen-shotted my work to subtweet me, I have no clue. I suspect the fact that I do not respond emboldens some people to @ me with righteous indignation. More power to them.
Last year, when I marked my first year of Twitter sobriety, I commented:
In hindsight, I quit Twitter at just the right time. I missed the Senate impeachment trial. I missed the pandemic. I missed Blue June. I missed the racial justice marches over the summer. I missed the election. I missed the election litigation. I missed January 6, 2021. Yet, I was able to stay remarkably well informed. And, I would say, much happier and saner. Plus I have more time. I suspect I save hours every week--time much better spent elsewhere.
The past year, thankfully, has been less eventful. The impeachment trial was over in a blink of an eye. And the Biden administration has been refreshingly boring. Yes, we are still stuck in a pandemic, and the Supreme Court is still deciding COVID cases. Hopefully this time next year, we can all get back to regular order.
You should try and quit Twitter. Stop checking your timeline. Stop checking your notifications. The world will continue. And you can avoid the awful cesspool.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Amen.
What is the value of the personal information they use, 50% of gross revenue, 95% of gross revenue? An analysis is needed.
Then retrieve it for all the users, and end the unjust enrichment of these traitor media platforms.
Never a twit. Never on Twitter. Never will. Same for FAKEBOOK.
Whoa... I was thinking of making an account. But now that I've seen you call it FAKEBOOK, I'm having second thoughts!
I think that life on Twitter must be a lot different for folks like you, Josh, or others with high follower counts and high profiles. I know people complain a lot about how quickly Ken White (@popehat) blocks, but I can't imagine what it's like to have so many followers and get so many @'s and notifications and comments, either kind or snarky. For me, Twitter is a good way to learn from (and even interact with) others who have different viewpoints, and of course to see videos and pictures of cats - long known to be the raison d'etre of the internet. I've made connections with people around the country and the world that warm my heart and lift my spirits. As I said though, I know it must be so much different for folks like you. i'm glad that you've found what works for you.
I can't tell if this refers to Twitter or the VC.
Never signed up for twitty, never did faceypage, refuse to participate in mobthink. Just watch and listen to laments of negative things that happen to participants. Use email out of necessity, not choice.
A whole lifetime without Twitter, but I did signup with Farcebook when I had to move away from my relations back in '08, let me keep up with what was going on with the family. Also allowed me to reengage with some online friends I'd made over the years, then lost track of as the discussion boards we'd met at went under.
Eventually had to switch over to MeWe, though, thanks to Farcebook's oppressive censorship, even in private groups.
"I still post links to my posts. I will click on a link to a tweet a friend sent me. And I occasionally use the direct messaging feature."
So not really "without twitter"?
Twitter "sobriety" he called it. Sounds about right.
I deleted my Twitter account a year ago this week and do not miss it at all. I think all that remains there are the media who re-tweet each other's deep insights and the Stepford-wife type of women who take everything Fauci says as true gospel.
Josh: I have quit Twitter
The Rest of Us: Who Cares?
(and why not stick to commenting, rather than using this Forum as your own persoal soapbox and self promotion site. I doubt if that is what Prof. Volokh and others intende when thet set this up.)
No the VC's purpose is for asshat commenters to tell lawprofs who's content they rush to read why they shouldn't have posted it.
Sidney r finkel: "Oooh! This post is outside the bounds of what *I* have decided the VC should have in it! I was forced to read it, and I didn't like it! I can't even with this...."
The Rest of Us (including some "us" not included in finkel's "us": Who Cares?
I care almost nothing about Blackman's Twitter usage. I care even less about your opinion of it.
As well you should
Twitter is fine. Just don't read the comments and don't write you own posts.
Josh Blackman: I have quit twitter.
Everyone else: Good for you! Now, can you quit the VC?
The past year, thankfully, has been less eventful.
OK then...
I guess the guy that said 250k covid deaths was unacceptable gets a pass.....for everything he touches.
"Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television"
Also, this is Twitter-lite, not Twitter-free.
Inspired by this post, I decided to tell my wife about how I'd stopped having affairs a couple of years ago. Yes, I told her, I'm still having sex with other women. (I'm doing that a lot actually, often several times a day.) And I still occasionally text with them.
But I'm no longer paying attention to their feedback. (If they've told me over the last couple of years about something they especially liked or disliked, or wanted more or less of, I'm completely unaware.) And I'm no longer hanging around to hear about what's going on in their lives. I told my wife all of this so she'd know that I was no longer cheating on her.
Her response took my by surprise. It was like she didn't understand English. What part of I'm no longer cheating on you did she not understand?
Anyway, does anyone have a recommendation for a good divorce attorney?
I lol'd
I told my wife our marriage is over. I refuse to spend one more suffocating day of a shared WORDLE account.
No twitter, no FB. No problem
Your headline and subheadlines are lies if you're still posting links to your own pieces. You're feeding the beast. Good for you if that's all you're doing. But you HAVE NOT quit Twitter; you're still giving it mouse-clicks and eyeballs.
Twitter delenda est. Don't stop halfway.
Josh: I have quit Twitter, by which I mean I still use it incessantly for my self-promotional purposes, and occasionally for communication purposes. So what I mean is that I've chosen not to engage with Twitter in a way that could possibly enlighten me about how my writing is received. But also I've taken to posting lengthy masturbatory posts on a blog with no apparent curation or restrictions on shitposting, so in a sense I haven't really addressed the core problem; I've just moved it to a forum I find more comfortable.
Actually it sounds as if he is saying:
I still use Twitter, but I don't let it use me.
Yeah, but where's the snark in *that* response?
" a blog with no apparent curation or restrictions on shitposting "
This blog repeatedly restricts comments by non-conservatives, especially when liberals and libertarians make fun of movement conservatives or make movement conservatives feel bad.
One of the benefits of partisan, hypocritical censorship -- from the perspective of Prof. Volokh -- is that the comments he doesn't like are removed or forbidden, so the curation and restriction isn't so apparent.
If I am misstating this blog's record with respect to censorship, I ask and encourage Prof. Volokh to offer his side of the story and to attempt to correct the record, if he can.
(I expect Prof. Volokh to refrain from challenging my account, in part because we both know the record that can be readily documented, but he deserves a chance to challenge my claim that he is a partisan, hypocritical, viewpoint-driven censor masquerading as a champion of free expression for political purposes.)
Arthur, I'm going to paste (with minor edits) my final comment from our Thursday exchange, since by the time I posted it the thread had apparently gone too stale for you to reply:
No hypocrisy?
This blog claims to be a champion of free speech -- incessantly nipping at the heels of liberal-libertarian institutions for asserted outrages against free expression -- yet censors the terms "sl_ck-jaw_d" and "c_p succ_r" and "p_ssy."
The term "sl_ck-jaw_ed" was banned, expressly described as offending civility standards at this "free speech, often libertarian" blog -- and without hypocrisy, in your judgment?
No bias?
This blog banned conservative-mocking parody, yet welcomes repeated calls for liberals to be gassed in ovens, raped, shot in the face, sent to Zyklon showers, placed face-down in landfills, etc. "C_p succ_r" was vanished; "phoqueue" was complimented -- again, in your estimation, without bias.
If I ever murder someone, Leo, I want you on that jury.
Here's another treat, Mr. Marvin.
I'd like to think any self-proclaimed libertarian would want me on their opponent's jury as well as their own.
Arthur, see Behar making my point, below. He was banned twice on earlier platforms when Eugene was still curating actively. And now Eugene allows him, as he does you and presumably others he'd have banned or curtailed previously, to roam free.
Prof. Volokh most recently censored me -- for "sl_ck-jaw_d" -- two years ago. On this platform.
The only reason Prof. Volokh hasn't censored me more recently is that I no longer type "sl_ck-j_w_d" or "c_p succ_r" or "p_ssy" or "Art_e R_y L_e W_yne J_m-B-_b K_rkl_nd' in the context of the Volokh Conspiracy. (I asked whether I would be permitted to use "c_p succ_r" at this blog and received no reply.)
The censorship at this blog is hypocritical. If you disagree, I hope you explain your reasoning, taking into account the record.
The censorship at this blog is partisan and viewpoint-driven. That point is susceptible to stronger debate. (The asserted reasoning -- 'civility standard -- is, however, silly.)
Arthur, I've explained my reasoning several times. You reply with the same anecdotes, none of which I dispute. But in addition to being non-responsive, they don't make the point you seem to think they do.
You're asking me to prove a negative, i.e., that EV's moderation isn't viewpoint biased. You know I can't do that. I can only repeat what I've said several times: As someone who opposes EV's political views, my observation over 15 years is that he moderates even-handedly. I suspect that if you polled the commenters here who oppose EV's politics, you'd find a consensus for that opinion.
That EV told you to stop using certain language a couple of years ago doesn't contradict that conclusion. Just because there are RW commenters who get away with things doesn't mean Eugene hasn't reined them in on other occasions. After all, he allows you to continue commenting despite your constant and obvious flouting of the guidelines.
But let's assume you're the only commenter EV has called out for a few years. That still doesn't mean he was motivated by viewpoint bias. It could be that you've given him more grief over a longer period of time than the others, so he has a shorter fuse with you personally, not ideologically. Again, that he lets you continue to comment at all is the only proof anyone should need that he leans over backwards not to impose his political views on comment moderation.
So . . . Just a hypocrite?
Assuming that's what's going on*, how is it hypocritical? Where's the hypocrisy in granting less latitude to an habitual rule/norm-breaker? Is it hypocritical to give longer sentences to repeat offenders than to first timers for the same crime?
(*I neither assume it is nor isn't what's happening, merely that it's one of several plausible explanations which don't inculpate EV in political bias or hypocrisy.)
This blog harps incessantly about ostensible censorship at certain (non-conservative) institutions. It claims to be "often libertarian" and a free speech champion.
It also censors words such as "sl_ck-jaw_d," "p_ssy," and "c_p succ_r", and bans a commenter for making fun of people through non-vulgar, non-obscene, non-threatening parody.
That is hypocrisy.
If you censor "sl_ck-j_wed" while castigating others for asserted censorship, you're a hypocrite.
If you can't see that, Mr. Marvin, I encourage you to consult an optometrist. Or, at least, recognize your vision is compromised by partisanship.
It's not hypocrisy. An institution of higher learning which promises and indeed relies on the free exchange of ideas is categorically different from a private blog which could pursue its mission perfectly well without allowing comments at all.
What partisanship do you think has compromised my vision? Are you under the impression I'm a Republican? A conservative? If you believe I'm either of those, you've really lost the thread.
He's. A. Liar. He was never censored. He's just trolling. He offers less substantive content than anyone else here, and I include that guy who was whining about cyberstalking and Behar. If Prof. Volokh were inclined to censor, he'd have been axed a long time ago.
I do commend the mute button. I've muted only one commenter -- want to guess who? -- and it has improved my VC experience immeasurably. If people stop engaging with him, he'll eventually stop commneting here.
Hi, David. Aren't you a lawyer? STFU. Nothing a lawyer says has the slightest validity. It is all self serving rent seeking codswalop (a word learned here). You are vile and toxic to the entire nation.
Volokh banned me from the original blog, and from the Washington Post blog. I complained to jeff@amazon.com. A Vice President at Amazon re-instated me. There has been zero censorship since the blog moved to Reason Magazine.
Volokh is, of course, a hypocrite, and an intelligent idiot. He supports the First Amendment, except when speech criticizes his view. He is an expert in the First Amendment, but is in denial about the catechism plagiarism in the common law. That is illegal in our secular nation.
David Nieporent
January.22.2022 at 6:58 pm
"He's. A. Liar. He was never censored."
Prof. Volokh has stated more than once at this blog that he censored me. Your bigoted right-wing perspective is interfering with your thinking, Mr. Nieporent.
If I am misstating the record, I hope Prof. Volokh has the decency to vindicate Mr. Nieporent. It's the least he could do for a guy willing to affix his tongue so firmly to the professor's ass.
Let's hear it, professor -- is Mr. Nieporent telling the truth?
[Nieporent twisting slowly in the wind, his partisan lies revealed]
You lose, clinger. You must be accustomed to it by now.
I don't know what he is complaining about, they added a whole new feature here for his posts.
Him and Behar.
Nice.
Although, since he's blocked, the Rev's responses are uncharacteristically brief and much more intelligent than usual.
Twitter encourages the debasement of discourse by facilitating the issuance of the textual equivalent of the soundbite. I have never posted a tweet and have no intention of ever doing so.
(1) On January 22, 2020, I decided to take a brief hiatus from Twitter.
(2) I did not know how long my self-imposed exile would last
(3) Two years later, I am proud to be Twitter free.
(4) Last year, when I marked my first year of Twitter sobriety
(5) In hindsight, I quit Twitter at just the right time.
(a) I still post links to my posts.
(b) I will click on a link to a tweet a friend sent me.
(c) And I occasionally use the direct messaging feature.
(I) You should try and quit Twitter.
------------
WTF!?
Even if you enjoy pointless political bickering like I do using Twitter or any other big Tech site to do so is literally like trying to carry on a debate where the host repeatedly throws you out of the house or stuffs a wad of cloth in your mouth or tapes a piece of paper on your head that says 'I'M WRONG' while he rolls out the red carpet for your opponent and gives him cocktails and a megaphone.
Even if you want to avoid politics altogether it is impossible with headlines that would make CNN blush like 'PROGS RULE CONSERVATIVES DROOL' integrated in the feed where you will constantly see it with no obvious way to turn it along with ultraleft bluecheckmark tweets boosted up to universal visibility.
Facebook ironically for all of its faults has gotten a bit better on this point as a social media site where you can just socialize while avoiding politics by removing their also ultraleft biased mandatory news ticker and allowing you to filter out the political rants of connections. Not that they still aren't biased and politically driven but if you are completely apolitical and avoid posting anything slightly against their narrative you can somewhat just get on with your chatting.
Never had a Twitter account. Never had a Facebook account. Never looked on purpose at them (sometimes links land on those sites unexpectedly; when I see that, I bail out).
But it would surprise me to learn that I have no presence at all with either of them. There is a weird, unsettling ubiquity to social media. Users have power to draw non-users into the vortex. What happens then I have no idea, and I doubt anyone can say.
I think I know! (I saw the movie)
You are sucked into the vortex and deposited in another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination.
Say "Hi!" to all my half pairs of socks and missing Allen wrenches. You can recognize my Allen wrenches easily, they're the ones that ARE THE SIZE I F'ING NEED!
About that headline. Why not, "Two years before the mask."
Literary heh
Look — another post from Blackman that can be TL;DR as "I."
Thank you for your heroism, Josh.
I admit to an unfamiliarity with the VC commentariat. Does this Josh fellow have some crimes against humanity on his record? He seems to bring out a lot of intensely negative reaction and snarky posts.
And as a long time Reason lurker/poster, I'm just not used to the negativity.
No, he just doesn't pretend to be a liberal, and is a tad self-promoting. Nothing on a scale that would justify the reactions.
Brett, do you think the other bloggers here are treated with more respect because they pretend to be liberals?
a tad self-promoting
I'd expect you to be much more accurate in your measurements.
Any academic under 40 not at a top 10 law school better be WILDLY self promoting, or completely unambitious.
And the promotion seems like it pays off,
he is listed as one of the top 20 Originalism law scholars by cites, along with Randy Barnett, Will Baude, Whittington and Ilya Somin. (I could totally identify with this note about Somin: "The initial post omitted Ilya Somin (George Mason) because I was not sure he considered himself an originalist. However, he confirms that he is, at minimum, an "originalist-oriented scholar." I can understand the confusion.)
Somin is known for a little self promotion now and again too, but nothing wrong with that.
Josh's CV is like 150+ pages long!
Huh? There is a ton of negativity on Reason's main posts. The VC is comparably civil in the comments.
Josh gets the negative attention he does because a number of the commenters on VC are longtime VC readers and legally trained professionals. It used to be that VC even had legal academics commenting, though that seems to have come to an end.
Meanwhile, Josh himself is an unabashedly self-promoting hack. Half of his posts are about Supreme Court gossip. He spams the front pages with posts going on at length on trivial details picked up in Court opinions or oral arguments, without the courtesy of clips. His "academic" arguments are often specious in the extreme and misconceived; he writes polemically and often in bad faith.
So those of us who've been around long enough to remember when VC commenters would dispute points of law or interpretation with Orin or Eugene in the comments are hostile to the "new" style of legal blogging that Josh has brought here. Unfortunately, Eugene himself has proven deaf to these complaints, and I have surmised (for my part) that Eugene has simply become more extreme in his own views and supportive of what Josh is doing here.
Meanwhile, the commentariat has changed over time. The VC's first big move, from an independent site to WaPo, probably lost a lot of regular commenters. Eugene made the unwise decision, in that move, to put comments behind the WaPo's paywall, unless you were coming to the site from a university or judicial system (I guess he didn't think want to hear from any practicing lawyers). The WaPo's commenting system was unsuitable for real discussion, anyway. Eventually, after the arrangement with WaPo appears to have expired, the VC jumped to Reason. But with the move to Reason came its proximity to the commentariat that dwells on the "main" Reason side, which includes a lot of non-legal people who view libertarianism as just a more respectable label for their conservative politics. And so we get a lot of late-to-middle-aged cranks who are highly opinionated and outspoken despite knowing very little, like Brett over there.
This could be a strong blog.
It settles instead for low-grade, partisan polemics and overt flattery of our society's vestigial bigots.
UCLA, Georgetown, and perhaps a few others must regret sorely whatever they did that led to association with this flaming shitstorm.
Or, alternatively, as blogging in general has fallen off in the age of Twitter, there are few regular contributors left here, and Eugene has decided that even bad content is better than limited content. Eugene posts a lot, and Prof. Somin and Prof. Adler post reasonably regularly, but who else besides Blackman? You get some guest posts, an occasional Prof Bernstein or Prof Kerr or Prof Whittington, but that's not enough. There's no more Zywicki or Barnett or
I maintain my Twitter account because it is the fastest and easiest way to contact customer service for several companies.
Other than customer service requests I haven't used Twitter since the summer of 2015 and haven't really missed it at all
A cable TV line fell across a friend's back yard. I tried to figure out how to get it removed. She wasn't a customer. The cable company will not talk to you unless you are a customer or want to become a customer. Not on the phone, not on the web page. The town wouldn't help because it wasn't on town property. Internet searches revealed there were only two ways to get their attention: shame them on social media or cut the wire and wait for a customer to notice.