I understand where the author is coming from in asserting that informal speech is being judged like writing. However, I think the answer lies in the fact that there is a sizeable number of people who actively want to take down anyone they deem problematic and short tweets just happen to be great fodder for this. Tweets being simple and conversational is secondary to wanting to cancel someone for having expressed problematic things. The online mob can easily dismiss context and extenuating circumstances regardless of the medium.
In contrast with physical aspects like gender, sexuality, and, occasionally, race.
Whether this cultural direction proves fruitful in the mid- to long-term remains to be seen.
I don't think that's quite it. The problem is that tweets are are almost completely context-free.
Tweets are a complete, self-contained, little statements utterly devoid of context that supporters and detractors alike can read almost anything into.
Tweets are a cypher. If one triggers a response in us, there is nothing to indicate that our first impression is not absolutely correct.
> "Why do tweets keep undoing people? The answer may lie in their hybrid nature. In form, the language of social media is written—but in style, it is far more like speech."
This sounds fine as a first hypothesis, but I think it can be rejected pretty quickly, based on the fact that video and audio of casual conversations that are deemed problematic are punished just the same.
They most likely don’t save every single tweet, however the chances are high that whatever you said and did on the internet in the past isn’t going away anytime soon.
