Twitter danger? Or am I paranoid?

[Lysmata Debelius]

At the moment my Twitter account exists, but I don't tweet or look at it because I find Twitter so toxic and upsetting. I have tried all kinds of ways to filter my stream but it's not working and I prefer to simply stay off it.

My question is this. Is there any downside to me as a writer having a Twitter account that's not active? Is there any benefit? Would it be better for me to delete my account? Or should I put a pinned tweet saying "I'm not active on Twitter, find me at x"?

I'm seeing so many heated twitter storms in the YA book world. Will me having a twitter account make it more or less likely that one of the ragionistas will notice me and decide to make me or my books a target? Some of my books are YA, and they do deal with racial and gender issues so I'd make a yummy football.

(Can a football be yummy? Maybe that's one mixed metaphor too far)

[Writer]

I guess there's no harm in deleting it, unless you think you might change your mind and want it back later. Of course, the only downside I can see to it sitting around unused indefinitely is that people might message you through it and be annoyed when you never see/answer their DMs. But if they have anything important to say, they'll probably look you up through email, anyway.

[Post-Doctorate D]

I don't think having a Twitter account will have any significant effect on whether someone chooses to target you or not.  I don't think people get enraged about something and then just let it slide if the target of their rage doesn't have a Twitter account.

Of course, the only downside I can see to it sitting around unused indefinitely is that people might message you through it and be annoyed when you never see/answer their DMs.

I'd say that's pretty doubtful.  When I first started using Twitter, I'd occasionally exchange DMs with people, but DMs eventually became overrun with spam to the point they weren't worth using anymore.  I don't even pay attention to DMs anymore.  I've occasionally checked, but all that's been there is spam.

Like you said, if someone wants to reach you, they'll probably send an eMail.

[Lysmata Debelius]

I don't think having a Twitter account will have any significant effect on whether someone chooses to target you or not.  I don't think people get enraged about something and then just let it slide if the target of their rage doesn't have a Twitter account.

That's kind of what I was thinking. So it's probably more a case that the danger of having a Twitter account is in the temptation to  tweet some dumb thing and attract the wrong kind of attention.

About the DM, I get an email notification if somebody DMs me so that shouldn't be an issue.

[Maggie Ann]

Opening DMs is dangerous so I haven't done it in years. Nearly every time I did, my account got hacked and spam or viruses sent to a bunch of my followers.

[Lysmata Debelius]

Opening DMs is dangerous so I haven't done it in years. Nearly every time I did, my account got hacked and spam or viruses sent to a bunch of my followers.

  That can happen just from opening the DM? Not even clicking a link in the DM?  I didn't know that. 

[Tom Wood]

... Or should I put a pinned tweet saying "I'm not active on Twitter, find me at x"? ...

I'd vote for that option since it shows that you have a social presence, but you are calling the shots in terms of where you want to play.

I have a few 'parked' profiles on the various platforms as I try to find where I want to be active. You've seen my pathetic attempts at Instagram, where I've decided to go quiet. But I don't want to lose my @handle, so it's just parked for now. Same at Tumblr and Pinterest - they just don't seem interesting to me. If you like your @handle at Twitter, keeping it in case you may want to use it later could be a good strategy. I like Twitter, but I'm careful not to go into the political discussions.

[Lysmata Debelius]

... Or should I put a pinned tweet saying "I'm not active on Twitter, find me at x"? ...

I'd vote for that option since it shows that you have a social presence, but you are calling the shots in terms of where you want to play.

I have a few 'parked' profiles on the various platforms as I try to find where I want to be active. You've seen my pathetic attempts at Instagram, where I've decided to go quiet. But I don't want to lose my @handle, so it's just parked for now. Same at Tumblr and Pinterest - they just don't seem interesting to me. If you like your @handle at Twitter, keeping it in case you may want to use it later could be a good strategy. I like Twitter, but I'm careful not to go into the political discussions.

That might be the best option for the moment. 
Off topic - instagram is a weird platform. Some people seem to get a lot of traction on it, but I find it hard to get any engagement going even just on a social level, never mind selling books. I also have developed a bit of an allergy to the overly flowery and polished "bookstagram" culture where every picture of a book is accompanied by glitter, artfully arranged flowers-and-reading-glasses-combo, one shoe, a coffee cup and a softly glowing candle.

[Tom Wood]

... Off topic - instagram is a weird platform. Some people seem to get a lot of traction on it, but I find it hard to get any engagement going even just on a social level, never mind selling books. I also have developed a bit of an allergy to the overly flowery and polished "bookstagram" culture where every picture of a book is accompanied by glitter, artfully arranged flowers-and-reading-glasses-combo, one shoe, a coffee cup and a softly glowing candle.

LOL Yeah, I couldn't get into that at all. If you look closely, you'll notice that the same donuts and coffee show up in a given account's photos over and over again across a long period of time. Which means they are plastic props. Which means that person has an elaborate photography mini-stage setup so they can make those carefully staged photos. To post on a social platform that is called Instagram because they are supposed to be casual 'instant' photos!

[munboy]

Twitter has become so toxic over the past several years...much more so than other social medias. I learned a long time ago that it doesn't matter what you say, there's a high probability that somebody out there is going to be offended. You just have to do the best you can.

As far as directing people to other places, I wouldn't say that you're not active on Twitter. If people see that, they're less likely to follow you. I'd just cut straight to the chase and ask people to follow you other places. Leave out the first part.

[Bill Hiatt]

I'd keep the Twitter profile, even if its inactive, just in case.

I've found that some cross-promotional opportunities require a mailing list, an FB page, and a Twitter profile. (In other words, participants are expected to publicize the promotion through all three.) I've yet to run across one that required any other social media accounts, but those two are fairly commonly required.

Also, Twitter is good for some things. For instance, if you do Amazon giveaways, publicizing them on Twitter with the hashtag #Amazongiveaway produces a huge response. I've also noticed that in general, since the latest round of Facebook trying to strangle any kind of organic reach, I usually get more response to promotional posts on Twitter than I do on FB, even though my FB following is more than three times as large.

I don't spend a lot of time looking at my Twitter feed, so I don't really notice the toxicity as much. And I think the risks of getting a Twitter mob raging against are relatively low. Frankly, I'm not a big celeb (or a celeb at all, really) to attract the attention of potential nut jobs. I think most indie writers are that way.  If I stick to promoting books and furnishing other tweets that are entertaining or informative (but not too political or otherwise controversial), I think the danger is minimal.

[APP]

I've had a Twitter account for years, but I've NEVER tweeted. All I use it for is to follow a number of different people whose comments/opinions I value.

[Lorri Moulton]

I have two Twitter accounts, but I mostly talk about old movies, gardening, a few sci-fi shows and Hallmark.

[Cathleen]

I'd keep the account current. You never know when it will come in handy.

There's another option--you could release a tweet/Facebook post once a week (I do the same posts on both). Keep it extremely vanilla--I do a lot of author quotes and puppy pics. I actually do this every day because I'm on a scheduler, but once a week would be doable without.

That way you're still current and you don't have to deal with Twitter live. What really feeds these nightmare scenarios is engagement. They may go after you anyway, but it's a lot like with book reviews. For pity's sake, don't engage.

[veinglory]

Instead of filtering your stream why not just unfollow everyone and start again, adding only people whose stuff you actually want to see.  If you can't find any such people, then twitter is indeed not for you.

[Lysmata Debelius]

I'd keep the Twitter profile, even if its inactive, just in case.

I've found that some cross-promotional opportunities require a mailing list, an FB page, and a Twitter profile. (In other words, participants are expected to publicize the promotion through all three.) I've yet to run across one that required any other social media accounts, but those two are fairly commonly required.

Also, Twitter is good for some things. For instance, if you do Amazon giveaways, publicizing them on Twitter with the hashtag #Amazongiveaway produces a huge response. I've also noticed that in general, since the latest round of Facebook trying to strangle any kind of organic reach, I usually get more response to promotional posts on Twitter than I do on FB, even though my FB following is more than three times as large.

I don't spend a lot of time looking at my Twitter feed, so I don't really notice the toxicity as much. And I think the risks of getting a Twitter mob raging against are relatively low. Frankly, I'm not a big celeb (or a celeb at all, really) to attract the attention of potential nut jobs. I think most indie writers are that way.  If I stick to promoting books and furnishing other tweets that are entertaining or informative (but not too political or otherwise controversial), I think the danger is minimal.

This makes sense, and is good advice. I'd not considered this, and it's perfectly true.

Instead of filtering your stream why not just unfollow everyone and start again, adding only people whose stuff you actually want to see.  If you can't find any such people, then twitter is indeed not for you.

I did this with my Facebook account and it works like a bomb. But the problem with Twitter is that when somebody you follow "likes" something, it appears in your stream. So no matter how carefully I vet things, I still get all kinds of stuff in my stream I don't want to see.  There are lots of people who tweet things I like to see, but then they go and like things I don't want to see

[YouMeWe]

I've lost nothing since dumping social media.

I've gained happiness, sales (yes, sales have actually increased), and time. So. Much. Time.

[Vijaya]

I've lost nothing since dumping social media.

I've gained happiness, sales (yes, sales have actually increased), and time. So. Much. Time.

That is so wonderful!!!

[Vidya]

The way to avoid toxicity on Twitter and Facebook is to avoid Twitter and Facebook.

I’ve never bought a book because the author sounded interesting on social media. Others have said the same, which shows what a waste of time it is as a marketing tool. Useful only if you love to hear yourself talk, about your politics and every little thing because you think your opinion about everything is just so fascinating and important for the world to hear.

I mean, I know my opinions about everything are correct, and in fact, are the only ones worth holding, but what use shouting them out into the ether when so many **** not a tenth as smart as me won't have the sense to see how right I am and will just attack me? My job is not to educate the ignorant; it's to tell stories.

[Lysmata Debelius]

The way to avoid toxicity on Twitter and Facebook is to avoid Twitter and Facebook.

I’ve never bought a book because the author sounded interesting on social media. Others have said the same, which shows what a waste of time it is as a marketing tool. Useful only if you love to hear yourself talk, about your politics and every little thing because you think your opinion about everything is just so fascinating and important for the world to hear.

I mean, I know my opinions about everything are correct, and in fact, are the only ones worth holding, but what use shouting them out into the ether when so many **** not a tenth as smart as me won't have the sense to see how right I am and will just attack me? My job is not to educate the ignorant; it's to tell stories.

I don't sell many books, being the prawniest of prawns, but as a matter of fact I found most of my readers because of my social media presence. I fairly often see people who I met online recommend my books to their online friends .  Maybe those result is sales, maybe they don't but for me, that's promotional gold.  I've also built a network of writers through my social media contacts who help to boost the visibility of my posts when I have a sale or a new book to launch, and those do give a visible bump to my sales. I couldn't have met those people or built relationships with them without social media.

Being on social media is not any different from being social in any other way. There are more options than being a pompous, opinionated jerk, or being silent.

As to "I've never bought a book because..." I try not to base my strategy completely on my own personal book buying preferences. Thousands of people out there have very different habits than I do. I try not to do things that I find annoying, which is why I don't have a newsletter, I just wouldn't be able to do a newsletter without seeming insincere. But in general, I find that solely relying on my own buying habits isn't a great guide. But then, I'm hardly a great success when it comes to selling books.

It's become sort of cool to be down on social media - it's like the "I don't have a TV" of the internet age (says me, who doesn't have a TV). I find social media a challenge, and some parts of it, like Twitter, can be quite toxic. But I'd hate to lose it completely. I have made so many friends, I love sharing what I have learned and asking for help from all the generous people out there.

[bookworm]

... Off topic - instagram is a weird platform. Some people seem to get a lot of traction on it, but I find it hard to get any engagement going even just on a social level, never mind selling books. I also have developed a bit of an allergy to the overly flowery and polished "bookstagram" culture where every picture of a book is accompanied by glitter, artfully arranged flowers-and-reading-glasses-combo, one shoe, a coffee cup and a softly glowing candle.

LOL Yeah, I couldn't get into that at all. If you look closely, you'll notice that the same donuts and coffee show up in a given account's photos over and over again across a long period of time. Which means they are plastic props. Which means that person has an elaborate photography mini-stage setup so they can make those carefully staged photos. To post on a social platform that is called Instagram because they are supposed to be casual 'instant' photos!

They're stock images. Put together in Photoshop or Canva. Here's a tutorial I bumped into so you can do it too. You're welcome.
https://simplifyingdiydesign.com/product-pictures-that-boost-sales/

[Tom Wood]

Thanks. That's even worse than staging the photos. At least a staged photo would have some artistic effort in it.

[Bill Hiatt]

The way to avoid toxicity on Twitter and Facebook is to avoid Twitter and Facebook.

I’ve never bought a book because the author sounded interesting on social media. Others have said the same, which shows what a waste of time it is as a marketing tool. Useful only if you love to hear yourself talk, about your politics and every little thing because you think your opinion about everything is just so fascinating and important for the world to hear.

I mean, I know my opinions about everything are correct, and in fact, are the only ones worth holding, but what use shouting them out into the ether when so many **** not a tenth as smart as me won't have the sense to see how right I am and will just attack me? My job is not to educate the ignorant; it's to tell stories.

I don't buy books based on social media hype or interesting author profiles either. Yet I know a lot of authors who have success with social media advertising. Some of them say that getting to know people on social media helps as well. Other people swear by their websites for the same reason. I think it's safe to say that at least some potential customers are influenced by these things.

[WriteOn]

This hasn't been my Twitter experience. I've found Twitter to be an invaluable writing resource where I've met two of my CPs, made many writing friends, found writing groups.

I can't be bothered with writing politics, so I avoid all of that drama. I've seen it on Twitter, but I've also seen it in writing forums, Facebook, etc. Twitter is no better or worse.

[bardsandsages]

This is the thing with Twitter: DON'T FOLLOW PEOPLE just because they follow you. This is how you end up with a toxic feed. I only follow people I genuinely want to interact with or find interesting.

I Tweet occasionally, but mostly use Twitter to keep up with friends and plug various projects. I don't follow people just because they follow me, which is where I feel the bulk of the drama comes from. If someone wants to follow me because they genuinely find me interesting or because they use Twitter to keep in the loop with their favorite authors...AWESOME! But the people who follow me just hoping I am going to follow them so they can increase their number of followers? Those tend to be the source of a lot of drama and toxicity.

You can also block certain accounts so they can't follow you or tweet at you, which is another good way to cut down on the noise.

[Rosie Scott]

I’ve never bought a book because the author sounded interesting on social media.

I agree. I've definitely found authors to avoid. Authors who get too political regardless of whether I agree with them or not annoy me to the point where I avoid their work. I have a Twitter account, but only for personal reasons. I have a link to an author page on there so I avoid tweeting anything controversial which is admittedly hard in this outrage culture.

Oddly, I've had luck with one type of "social media" that no one here has mentioned. Steam. I have somewhat of a following on Steam of people who love my long detailed game reviews, and after one told me I should be an author years ago (they didn't know I was one) I added my author page link to my profile. Since then I've had multiple people message me on Steam that they love my books. It was totally unexpected since the link is all there is. I don't otherwise talk about writing or advertise my books, but enough people love my reviews that they check out my profile and follow through with the links.

[bardsandsages]

Oddly, I've had luck with one type of "social media" that no one here has mentioned. Steam.

Steam is strangely good that way. I've got some popular mods for Skyrim there, and I've picked up fans that way. In many of my companion mods, there are books that grant skill points but also include actual lore-friendly stories. I've had people message me saying things like "You should be an author" 

[Lysmata Debelius]

This is the thing with Twitter: DON'T FOLLOW PEOPLE just because they follow you. This is how you end up with a toxic feed. I only follow people I genuinely want to interact with or find interesting.

I Tweet occasionally, but mostly use Twitter to keep up with friends and plug various projects. I don't follow people just because they follow me, which is where I feel the bulk of the drama comes from. If someone wants to follow me because they genuinely find me interesting or because they use Twitter to keep in the loop with their favorite authors...AWESOME! But the people who follow me just hoping I am going to follow them so they can increase their number of followers? Those tend to be the source of a lot of drama and toxicity.

You can also block certain accounts so they can't follow you or tweet at you, which is another good way to cut down on the noise.

I don't follow people just because they follow me, but I think most of my problematic "friends" have come from following people other people recommend, especially in the YA Twitter world.  Also, there's the thing that if you use the native Twitter web interface like I used to, you don't just see tweets by people you follow, you also see the stuff they like and that's often the stuff I don't want to see.
I've been told that using Tweetdeck etc can sidestep this problem.

[Jessica]

I only follow people I genuinely want to interact with or find interesting.

I agree with that.
Ten years ago I loved Twitter but nowadays I'm somewhat fed up with it so my Twitter and Instagram profiles are private, I closed DMs (so only people I follow/ who follow me can send me massages) and I barely post. It became just another channel to communicate with other authors/ artists, and I went back to stick to forums. I like to talk about writing/ creating art and I'm not interested in ones pictures about their latest meal, or their blind text like descriptions to some boring nature photographs they took without any ambition just to post something for the sake to post something.

But I still have to admit that I love to browse Social Media whenever I come up with a new pen name, and I like to claim the @handle if it's free and not to similiar to another author name. Just so nobody else gets this @handle.

[Ros]

The tone of Twitter seems to have changed for the worse recently. I find myself using it less often and for shorter periods, and that's probably a good thing.