Isabel Hardman on the Twitters.

Social Media I might not agree with everything Isabel Hardman says, but I always find her contributions valuable, at least in terms of offering a verifiable direction as to where my own political compass is.

 Although she writes for The Spectator, which is in so many ways anathema to me, she has an even hand doesn't feel as ideologically guided as some of their other writers.

 Now here she on Medium talking about just much of a pain that is:

"Those in a political tribe are the least able to judge what is “balanced” or what valid questions are. That is why the stream of angry tweets every time one of us writes an article about any political party or politician don’t make any difference to the journalists reading them, other than to foster a sense that Twitter is just becoming unbelievably tedious. The partiality of those complaining that we’re prioritising something they they consider tittle-tattle is so easy to spot. Often they seem only to have read pieces that they know will make them angry, rather than the ones that paint their opponents in an unfavourable light too. Write a piece about Jeremy Corbyn not singing the national anthem and you’ll receive hundreds of messages asking how you dare do such a thing. Write a piece about the Tory changes to tax credits, or disability benefit cuts, or countering Isil, and it’s as though they were never published. The mob is busy elsewhere."

Twitter has become really quite tedious and certainly not as much fun as a networking tool as it used to be. A lot people who I used to follow/talk to have, I suspect, migrated to the walled garden of Facebook, a place which like tumblr I barely understand or like that much.