I'm with you. I don't really use social media myself, either, and would need to really be pressed to use something like Twitter. I would think if I did use it, I'd try not to get involved in sensitive issues... though I think the climate of today sort of demands choosing a side, to one extent or another. I'm comfortably on one side of the political spectrum, and pretty passionate about it, but choosing a side these days, by default, means you're courting hostility from a wide swath of people on the other side... which invites internet trolls, angry fans, and other such minefields, as you say. So, yeah, that's definitely something to think about.
Yeah. I thought about it last month, and finally nuked my Twitter account, that I'd had for nearly ten years (albeit used very sporadically). I just couldn't see the upsides of the platform. You'd be hard pressed to persuade me to wade back into it at this point.
This this this this this. I like being on Twitter, but I'm small enough and white male enough to avoid the worst crap. I've still had to manage a couple blow-ups in the past over articles I've written, and it's utter hell.
I get very concerned when I read agent interviews and see agents pushing hard for authors to be on social media at all costs. I get that it can (sorta, not that convinced myself) help sell books. At best, an author's engagement needs to be moderated--not just in terms of actively blocking trolls (there's only so much you can do there, as Susan's case shows) but in making sure you know what to say, when not to say anything, that you have the ability and support to walk away on occasion, etc. But managing a large social media account is really a full-time PR job, and I've met a lot of PR people, including those who manage social accounts, who have no idea how these platforms actually work or how to engage on one with care. It's not an easy thing to do. Pause before you tweet, have a rolling delete plug-in, have a Plan B in case anything does go wrong, discuss crisis management with your stakeholders.
There's a high correlation between the agents I see pushing social media use in interviews and the agents whose own social media channels are badly curated. Ergo, they aren't informed or careful users of the platforms either. Which is fine--few people are, and social media platforms are designed this way. Their purpose is to sell you to advertisers. They are not tools. They are advertising forums with chainsaws on the walls.
I do wonder if the push towards social media comes mainly from those agents, publishers, etc. who are already firmly within the 'bubble'. That may well be most of the publishing industry, and I wonder if there isn't a sort of observer bias in play, where Twitter seems like a good promotional channel to people who
already use Twitter, and are in an industry where everyone around them is using it. Perhaps there's a degree of blindness to the fact that the great majority of the public
aren't on Twitter, and have no desire to be. Twitter's a narrow audience, and everything I've read suggests it's a mediocre promotional outlet at best, and personal experience suggests it's more likely to be a
distraction from writing. That's if it doesn't explode in your face.
I follow that games writer on Twitter. She, like many other creators, has always been outspoken on a variety of issues, and she's always had nasty blowback because that's what Twitter does. She has one bad day, and because the games industry treats unions in much the same way it treats cases of the plague, she ends up fired. There are real risks, especially if you're in a vulnerable position. And it's a pity, because one of the benefits of Twitter is better access. But that can't come at the expense of creators. Morality clauses are, among other things, just another way of pushing all of this out of sight, out of mind. Remember that the Big 5 publishers (and large game studios) are multinational corporations, and they have exactly the politics and behaviour you would expect.
I'm coming to the belief that it's just plain unacceptable for publishers, etc. to put all the burden of social media engagement onto creators, without support. Particularly through flaming dumpster fire platforms like Twitter, but in general as well. Unacceptable, unethical, borderline exploitative. It'd be nice to see morality clauses that went both ways, and offered redress if the publisher dumped the creator into a social media blowup (or for that matter acted unethically in any other way), but ha ha ha hah we know that's not going to happen.
Thank you! My boss said the same thing - stay off social media - but being ACTIVE on social media was written into my 2 book contracts. My publisher's publicists retweeted a lot of my tweets and monitored what I said and did. They didn't react to the troll fight, but PT did. It's insane. I had 3 different responses: PT fired me, my boss was spooked and wanted me to shut it down, my publisher ignored the whole thing. How does anyone understand what to do in the face of over-the-top responses from one place and "who cares?" from another place.
Yeeeech, that contract. I'd be tempted to call my social media accounts 'Albedo's Contractually Mandated Apolitical Meme Diffusion Service' and post nothing but lolcats. Except they'd be ANARCHIST lolcats.
Idea people.