I'm not a huge twitter user, but I went into this article skeptical. I always saw the problem as too many bots - fake profile pictures and regurgitated statements that amplify pundits, harass people for having an opinion, scam people out of money, and altogether make the most of internet anonymity. I imagine a "grey checkmark" that would require some form of human-to-human authentication (although obviously such an institution would introduce corruption).
After this experiment, I'm realizing it's more complicated than that. Twitter is a reverse-shit sandwich. Crap in the lowliest dredges (the bot level), crap at the top (the pundit level), and a few pleasant people talking about cakes, music, and urban planning in the middle.
That's the thing - Twitter creates a situation where to dominate the medium, you need to be loud and abusive. Lots of people will use the medium without the need to dominate but those who need to be on top of the social hierarchy will do what it takes to get to the top of this hierarchy (or be replaced by those who do).
I mean, I'm pretty critical of social hierarchies (for a long time I considered myself an anarchist but no longer). But particular kinds of social hierarchies are part of this society and while improving this society is one thing, imagining we can eliminate social hierarchies without changing other stuff is another and problematic thing in my opinion. A lot of the problematic evolution of this society over the last fifty years has involved the change from authorized, rules-setting authority to bullying-authority and that's produced some actual abuse but has moreover, reduced our ability to act against visible problems, a situation that's past the verge of crisis.
After this experiment, I'm realizing it's more complicated than that. Twitter is a reverse-shit sandwich. Crap in the lowliest dredges (the bot level), crap at the top (the pundit level), and a few pleasant people talking about cakes, music, and urban planning in the middle.