I blame an administrative class that is either too cowardly to stand up to the mob, or - and I fear this is more likely - actually deranged and in complete agreement with the mob.
I say the latter is more likely because, in this case and so many others, there was so little at stake. There was no imminent risk to MIT's reputation for platforming a climate scientist speaking on climate change... merely because he had elsewhere spoken unfavorably of affirmative action.
The dreadful truth is the administrators think the activists are right. Not threatening. Morally right.
The administrators and the activists believe in the same ideology. They are enlisted in the same cause. They are on the right side of history, mowing us down with a joyful song of resistance in their hearts.
And still we praise and support these institutions.
This has been my experience working alongside University administrators. A sizeable chunk of them (I wouldn't say a clear majority, but in no way a small minority) are exactly the kinds of people who participate in these mobs, and are perfectly happy to use small spats and uproars on Twitter as political cover to legitimize their internal activism.
The people buckling out of fear are less worried about the consequences of upsetting faceless Twitter users than they are about upsetting a semi-organized and ideologically motivated fifth-column within their own organizations.
On second thought - I agree with you. Twitter is only a problem because companies/administrations listen to it as if a few people shouting on the internet were representative of the population in any way. Which in turn empowers those shouting the most.
Well many claimed that Twitter caused the Arab Spring a decade or so ago. That uprushing of democracy in the Arab states. And look how that turned out....hmm.
What exactly did Twitter itself do other than create a unique platform that is arguably valuable in its own right? Are they secretly making it more evil to make more ad money?
Just to be clear - I blame "Twitter" the platform not "Twitter" the corporation. The platform gave voice to people who want to cause outrage, whether the corporation wanted or intended that is only secondary. Maybe it's a distinction without a meaning, but it makes sense in my head.
Their choice of algorithms also maximizes the reach of these people, since they use the same mechanisms that maximize the reach of advertisers (twitters actual client, users are the product).
