Does following an idiot make you an idiot?

Or, the ethics, etiquette and implicit conventions of emerging social media.

An interesting question came up in my twitter feed earlier today - Does following someone signify endorsement of them / their content, or can it be agnostic and baggage-free interest?

Dan was asking primarily from the perspective of research, but it does open up a few interesting lines of enquiry:

Does following someone imply support for their views, or is it a neutral expression of interest in what that person is saying?

If you did follow an “objectionable” user (such as, let’s say, a prominent member of the BNP) or perhaps a user with a very public, defined set of views (such as… oh, I don’t know… the Pope) does that imply that you support their views?

What if you add them to a list - what does your choice of list names say about your views?

If you add someone to a list called “research” it implies a particular relationship to that individual and their data, whereas “inspiration”, “comedy” or “idiots” imply entirely different perspectives.

Does an un-commented re-tweet equate to an endorsement of that tweet (and its author), or is it simply a way of saying “I just saw this - make up your own mind about it”?

So, what are the evolving issues of etiquette and implicit conventions of social media (specifically Twitter)?

(And does following an idiot make you and idiot?…)

Originally posted on Tumblr