Month: December 2023

A New Year’s resolution for 2024: never tweet

It’s almost a new year, so you may be thinking about making a resolution for self-improvement in 2024. Go to the gym. Eat or drink less. Quit smoking. All of these are worthwhile ideas. Unfortunately, they’re also hard. Here’s an easy one: never tweet.

Maybe you already never tweet. Good for you! You are wiser than I was. I kicked a sixteen year habit in October. 21,000 times I opened that little text box, typed something in, and hit post. 1,300 times a year. 3-4 times a day. Then I decided I was done. I thought I would miss it, but I’ve gotta tell you, it’s great. Sometimes I still open the app to see what’s happening and come across something that I would have responded to in the past. But now I’m pre-committed to not responding. People are wrong on the internet and I simply let it go. It’s bliss.

The short case for leaving Twitter — let’s call it X, because Twitter as it used to be is gone — is that X is bad now. You are better than X. You should put your energy elsewhere.

But I’m not here to scold or make a purely negative case against being on X. The positive case is that while X goes down the tubes, other online spaces are coming up that are fun and rewarding.

The decline of X isn’t just about Elon Musk. The platform had plenty of unique pathologies before he acquired Twitter. We called it a “hellsite” for a reason, sometimes affectionately, sometimes not. It often brought out the worst in people, especially with the innovation of the quote-tweet, a feature tailor-made for uncharitable dunks. The crowd could be outright abusive. But Musk has made it worse in ways too numerous to recount here, and with which you’re certainly familiar if you follow such things.

Musk insists on being the main character of X in ways that owners of other social media platforms do not. And what a character he is. A small sampling of his recent activity could note this endorsement of the Great Replacement theory, this weird racist meme, telling companies pulling their ads because of antisemitism to fuck themselves, and running a space with himself, Alex Jones, Vivek Ramaswamy, and other lunatics and dumbasses.

It’s possible to use the site without endorsing this garbage, but this garbage is very much the face of the site now. And I’m hardly one to judge, since it took me long enough to leave, but it’s baffling to me that so many of you are still content implicitly saying, “Follow me on X, because this is the platform I choose as the place to share my work, exchange ideas, and present myself to the public.”

Before Musk took over, there were at least two compelling reasons to be on Twitter despite its many problems and even if you kind of hated it. One was that it was a useful place to link to one’s writing. The other was that despite Twitter’s small size relative to other networks, it was culturally central for journalists, academics, politicians, celebrities, and other influential users.

Neither of those conditions holds as much as they used to. Musk has been capricious with regard to links, temporarily breaking them when they point to Substack or removing headlines, for example. Both decisions were reversed, because they were obviously petty or incredibly dumb. But even now, posts with links in them are apparently downgraded by the algorithm in hopes of keeping users on X rather than clicking out. The site still has some utility for sharing links, but it’s far less than it did as Twitter; in some ways, the platform has been actively hostile to sharing your writing.

Its uselessness is compounded by the fact that so many people have left the platform or substantially reduced their use of it. I never had a huge following on Twitter (about 6,500 followers when I quit posting), but I was connected to influential writers and journalists who did. If I wrote something interesting it might get shared by them, potentially reaching hundreds of thousands more viewers. But that’s much less likely to happen now because 1) my followers are less likely to see my writing in the first place, thanks to the downgrading of posts with links, and 2) a lot of the smart and influential people I was connected to have quit or massively reduced their activity on X.

As a freelance writer myself, I sympathize with anyone struggling to build a following for their work. It’s hard! And it’s even harder with a more fractured internet. But if your goal is getting people to actually click through and read your writing, it should be clear that the usefulness of X has degraded and is unlikely to get better.

The flipside of this is that Musk’s trashing of Twitter has spurred the development of new online communities elsewhere. Personally, I’m finding the closest zeitgeist to the old fun Twitter on Bluesky, which has a smaller userbase but has attracted lots of journalists, academics, and internet weirdos (I mean that in the best possible way). When I log on there, I find smart, interesting people interacting, making jokes, and sharing worthwhile links. There’s some of that when I log onto X, but increasingly my feed there consists of smart people I know arguing with the dumbest people on the internet.

Other writers seem to like Threads, which has greater reach but is kind of boring in my experience. There’s Mastodon too. I’m biased of course, but I’m really enjoying the small but growing community we’re building at Seabird, a platform designed specifically for sharing links online. (Sign up here!)

None of these platforms yet replace the influence of Twitter, but on the whole I think that’s a good thing. The near-term future of the internet is fractured, and that’s probably healthy. As I wrote of Twitter back in April 2022:

We expect too many different things from the site. We want it to be the fun virtual place to watch the Super Bowl, follow breaking news, find smart things to read, learn from experts, keep up with friends, make jokes about the new three-hour Batman movie, look at funny cat memes, share our Wordle scores, go viral, open our thoughts up to comment from millions of strangers, and gather for ritual combat over politics all at the same time while somehow not having the site devolve into Boschian chaos. Maybe that’s just not possible. But if we can’t fix it, we can exit and look elsewhere, at least for some of these purposes.

The old network you had on Twitter is never coming back, but your new networks can be exciting. Yes, it takes time to build up connections on a new platform. But maybe your networks could use some shaking up anyway. I know that after sixteen years on Twitter, mine became a bit rigid as I became reluctant to add too many new people to my feed. But early adopters are more likely to follow each other on a new network and I’m enjoying the freshness of my feeds on other platforms.

The psychedelic researcher Robin Carhart-Harris has compared the experience of neural rewiring on a strong trip to “shaking a snowglobe,” disrupting old thought patterns, creating new connections, and making space for more flexibility. That strikes me as an apt analogy for building a network on a new platform too. I’ve lost some of my old connections, but I’ve made lots of new ones. Think of it as a magic mushroom trip for your microblogging feed.

If you’re not yet willing to quit X entirely, there are some half-measures you could try. Some of my friends are now restricting their activity to only sharing their latest articles. (I no longer even do that; my only use of the platform now is to encourage people to leave it, so I’ll make an exception for this post.) Another option is to make X the last place you share things, breaking the habit of making it the first place you go. Or you could try a “dry January” of not tweeting. Pick a new platform or two and commit to exploring them for a month. If by February you’re still pining for X, no one will stop you from going back.

But really, I would encourage you to just quit. My only regret is that I didn’t quit sooner. X is bad. You are better than X. There are plenty of other options now. Find your friends and do your thing somewhere else. New year, new you, no tweets.

Would a Biden menthol ban tip the election to Trump?

Yesterday was the 90th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, so I have a new piece at Reason about the lessons that era holds for contemporary efforts to prohibit tobacco and nicotine. It touches on the proposed generational tobacco ban in the UK, the similar proposal just reversed in New Zealand, vape bans around the world, flavor bans in the US, and the total disaster that is Australia, where mere possession of a vape is a criminal offense and rival gangs are torching tobacco shops in a turf war for the illicit market. Read it here!

Relatedly, the Biden administration is further delaying its long-anticipated ban on menthol cigarettes. As Dan Diamond and David Ovalle report for the Washington Post, this seems to be due at least partly to political considerations. The administration now anticipates an announcement in March of next year. Anti-smoking groups are urging immediate action, while others are raising civil liberties concerns and noting the electoral risks.

As I posted on Bluesky yesterday, I think the risk that a menthol ban could contribute to tipping the 2024 election to Trump is worth seriously considering. A lot of Americans smoke menthol cigarettes. The Post cites a 2019 figure of 18.5 million Americans using them; other estimates suggest about 40% of adult cigarette smokers choosing menthol brands, which would put the figure closer to 12 million. Menthol cigars probably bump the figure higher. Regardless, that’s a significant bloc of adults that would be directly impacted by a menthol ban.

A ban would disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic smokers. The 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health finds that about 80% of the former and 50% of the latter use menthol cigarettes, compared to about a third of white smokers. Notably, these are demographic groups that are crucial to Biden’s re-election and among which he is distressingly losing support.

What do voters think of a menthol ban? There’s quite a bit of variance among surveys, but it’s worth looking at data from a 2018 survey funded by the Truth Initiative. Overall, it finds that a narrow majority (56%) of adults support a menthol ban. Support is greater among African-Americans (60.5%) and Hispanics (69%). On the surface, that seems to signal that announcing a menthol ban might be good politics.

There is one important group, however, among which support for a menthol ban drastically plunges: people who smoke menthols. Only 28.5% of adult smokers who prefer menthol cigarettes want the government to ban them. That shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s very inconvenient for ban advocates and potentially for Biden’s electoral chances if his administration moves forward with the policy.

The big question is which of these survey results is most important: the modest support for a menthol ban among these demographic groups as a whole or the overwhelming opposition among the people who smoke them. I’m personally skeptical that a menthol ban would be a major motivator bringing voters to Biden. Do non-smoking voters care all that much about tobacco policy? A ban would be extremely salient to smokers themselves, however. They would identify Biden directly with banning a product they use everyday and Republicans would quite credibly accuse Democrats of using big government to interfere in adults’ choices.

To be transparent about my own biases, I think a menthol ban is bad policy. I also think it’s vitally important for the future of the United States that Donald Trump does not become president again. So, I’m extremely invested in Biden winning the 2024 election even if that does mean we get a menthol ban. But the timing of that ban matters, and I’d be a whole lot less worried about the FDA announcing it in 2025 than in 2024.

With that in mind, I’m not sure what the Biden administration gains by delaying the announcement just to March, even closer to the election. I’d much prefer that he just bury the issue for now and focus on much more important matters, like not handing the country over to an aspiring dictator.

There are a couple objections to this worth addressing. One is that public health shouldn’t be a matter of politics. This is completely wrong; banning menthol is a political issue. Weighing in on issues like this is exactly what elections are for. If Biden is worried that banning menthol would motivate people to vote against him, then he’s justified not banning menthol.

A second objection is that delaying the menthol ban risks losing the opportunity to implement the policy. There is certainly some truth to this and I’d be fine with that result, but ban advocates should be aware that there’s uncertainty no matter what. Regardless of when the FDA finalizes the policy, it will likely take years to take effect. The most important factor for the prospect of a menthol ban is who is president in 2025. If Biden wins, he’ll have four more years to implement the ban. If Trump wins, well, who the hell knows what will happen, but I wouldn’t be surprised if took the opportunity to reverse one of Biden’s signature policies. So, even if you do support a ban on menthol cigarettes, I think there’s a reasonable case for giving Biden the slack to wait until after the election to pursue it.

It’s cliché to say, but this election is far too important to risk on a potentially divisive issue like banning menthol cigarettes, especially if one possible result is that the ban gets scrapped anyway when we end up with Trump back in power. And don’t be complacent; Trump’s prospects for winning are alarmingly real.

I’m not saying that a menthol ban tipping the election to Trump is the most likely outcome or that it wouldn’t be an incredibly stupid outcome, but unlikely and incredibly stupid outcomes are what got Trump elected in the first place. Let’s not do that again.

Update 12/7/23: Publication of the final rule is now officially set for March. Further, the FDA has also scheduled publication of its proposed nicotine standard for April. This is a more preliminary stage of rulemaking but it’s an even more drastic regulation: by capping nicotine in cigarettes at a very low level, it would essentially amount to prohibition. More than 28 million American adults currently smoke cigarettes, so announcing one’s intention to ban them in an election year, with the stakes as high as they are, strikes me as an extremely dangerous strategy.

Some additional links: I wrote a case against a federal menthol ban for Reason back in 2021. For a deeper dive into contemporary tobacco politics, read my book The New Prohibition. And on related issues, I recently reviewed the Netflix docuseries “Big Vape” for the Examiner (ungated link).

Image credit: Photo by Possessed Photography on Unsplash.