Many people include a disclaimer in their Twitter biographies, to the effect that a retweet does not imply endorsement. This has always seemed superfluous to me. Surprisingly, it appears to be necessary.
Imagine the scene: you walk into a room, and announce that Julius Malema has just called for the nationalisation of mines. Would you expect people to turn on you, and educate you about how economically illiterate, morally unjust and practically unwise it is to nationalise mines? Or would you expect them to shake their heads and go: “Hawu, that Juju.”
Or when a journalist writes an article, in which they report that Steve Hofmeyr said Bono said it's cool to sing violent protest songs, would you attribute the opinion that it's cool to sing violent protest songs to Bono, to Hofmeyr, or to the journalist?
Why, then, when using social networks such as Twitter, do people appear to believe a quotation implies that you agree with the person who said it? Why, even when you explicitly say a retweet does not mean endorsement, will people tell you they're going to assume you endorse it anyway?
How can one possibly retweet anything at all that Barack Obama, Steve Hofmeyr or Greenpeace tweet, if by doing so it is assumed one wholeheartedly agrees? Isn't what they say worth quoting on occasion, without the presumption that you think they're right?
Is it not possible that the person who retweets them hopes to demonstrate how wrong they are, and credit their followers with the ability to make up their own minds about it?
If retweets are endorsements, how do you explain people who retweet worthy but critical responses to their own tweets? Since when is abject capitulation common on Internet forums?
Just like when a journalist quotes a source, the intent is to demonstrate to readers (or friends and followers, in the case of social networks) what the source says. More importantly, an intelligent person would seek out conflicting opinions, and allow the protagonists on each side of a case to speak for themselves. Failure to do so risks confirmation bias, in which you only engage with opinions you already agree with, and highlight facts only if they support your preconceived ideas.
However, engaging with both sides of an argument, by quoting opposing viewpoints, does not imply that one agrees with both. That would be self-contradictory.
While you may or may not agree with a statement, merely quoting it implies neither.
Ivo Vegter, ITWeb contributor
Whether a retweet implies endorsement is not a matter of opinion. It does not. Full stop. If you assume otherwise, you're the one making the mistake. In fact, that is why the retweet ought to be properly and unambiguously attributed to the person who first said it. In fact, Twitter's native retweet functionality does not even permit you to indicate agreement or disagreement.
While you may or may not agree with a statement, merely quoting it implies neither. Only when accompanied by the phrase “I agree” (or shorthand for it, such as “+1”) can one assume that the person relaying the information agrees or approves.
This confusion is not uncommon, and extends beyond mere quotation.
In a recent case, I commented on a popular television personality who resigned over using the k-word in a moment of anger. I explicitly condemned the action, and linked to a recent column in which I made the case that we should never tolerate racism, but actively refuse to serve, employ or even speak to people who use racial slurs.
When, some time later, I noted with approval the culprit's unequivocal apology, in which he said there is no excuse for what he did, I was promptly accused of implying that the apology made racism okay. No, it does not. In fact, approving of that apology explicitly approves the statement that there is no excuse for racist slurs. In any case, approving of contrition does not imply approving of the wrong that was committed.
Social media, in very many ways, is meaningfully expanding public debate and participation. No Media Appeals Tribunal, for example, could have been harsher on the Sunday Times for running a three-year-old sensationalist story than its readers were online. When voters, readers or customers have a public voice, this places great responsibility on political leaders, journalists and companies to be responsive and responsible. Never has it been as easy to hold the powerful to account as it is in the social media world of today.
However, for that public voice to be constructive, it helps to get the basics right. Mistaking a quote for an endorsement, or mistaking an unsupported claim for verified fact, or believing that merely accepting an apology condones the crime, does not make debate any clearer, fairer or more useful. The people who do so merely muddy the water.
Their participation in public discourse detracts from, rather than adds to, its value.
And if you forward a link to this column to your friends or colleagues, I promise I won't conclude that you agree with everything I've ever said or thought.
Share