Why Twitter does not gamify communication

Abstract

ABSTRACTA central question for understanding social media platforms is whether the design of these systems is itself responsible for the harmful effects they have on society. Do these systems push users toward unhealthy forms of engagement? Is there something inherently toxic about the design that distorts who we are when we use it? In a recent paper, Thi Nguyen argues that the design of Twitter is responsible for many of its most toxic outcomes. Nguyen’s argument is based on an analogy between Twitter and games. He argues that Twitter’s game-like features encourage users to rack up Likes and Retweets rather than engaging in the rich and subtle activity of communication. For Nguyen, this drive for high scores leads to many of the toxic effects of the platform. In this paper, we critique Nguyen’s argument. We contend that, in a crucial respect that matters, Twitter is not game-like. We show that the apparent plausibility of Nguyen’s argument rests upon overlooking this crucial disanalogy. Moreover, drawing out how Nguyen’s analogy breaks down makes clear not just that his account fails to explain Twitter’s toxicity, but also that it actively occludes the design choices that have negative effects on its users.KEYWORDS: Social mediaphilosophy of technologynormativity of artifactsargument by analogy Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Unless noted, all emphases are in original.2 Another objection might arise at this point: what if there are games that do not have constitutive rules that sculpt temporary agency? This is an interesting objection, but it is first-and-foremost an objection to Nguyen’s account of games. If there are games that do not have constitutive rules that sculpt temporary agency, Nguyen would have to draw his proposed analogy between Twitter and games somewhere else.