Just Call Them "Tweets"

The case for the culturally appropriating the word.

Good Evening:

I will have more to say about these books later in the week.

I’m sorry, but I’m just not calling them skeets.

I’m not calling them posts.

I’m not calling them spouts.

I’m calling them tweets, damn it.

I’m using the verb “to tweet” or “to tweet out.” And I’m calling it a “tweet thread.” Even if it’s not on X. Even if it’s on Mastodon. Even if it’s on Threads. Even if it’s on Bluesky.

I don’t give a shit. I’m calling them tweets.

The case for this is simple: It’s what we all mean. A tweet is a short-form entry on a micro-blogging platform—any micro-blogging platform. The verb “to tweet” means to make a short-form entry on a micro-blogging platform. Yes, the word has its origins on a specific site, but at this point, it’s just a word. It has no brand affiliation. And let’s face it: Even if it did have a brand affiliation a couple of years ago, Elon Musk abandoned the word “tweet” when he abandoned the name Twitter for the site.

It annoys me that people who hate Musk seem to want to cede the word to him. This is wrongheaded. If you hate Musk, the solution is not to grope around for some other word to approximate what’s going on at his site. It’s to appropriate it entirely and commoditize the word “tweet.” I can tweet anywhere. I don’t need to be on Elon’s site to tweet. There’s better tweeting elsewhere, actually.

So quit trying to come up with a new term.

It’s tweeting—wherever you happen to do it.

Pass it one.

---

Today on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher joined me for show and tell. She showed off her newest parody video (in which I appear) and told me about the process of making it. And I told her about my latest Special Military Operation, which launched my newest show, “Project With Me.” Also, I ranted about Kash Patel, and about presidential pardons. Here’s the show:

And here’s Holly’s latest parody video:

---

Today on Lawfare

In my The Situation column today, I discuss “The Patel Paradox” in response to President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he will nominate Kash Patel to replace FBI Director Christopher Wray. I argue that, since the nomination clearly signals an intention to commit impeachable abuses of power, senators forfeit the ability to credibly object to those abuses in the future if they confirm Patel in the first place:

Indeed, Trump is removing Wray and replacing him with Patel specifically in order to commit these abuses, and he’s making virtually no attempt to hide it. I say “virtually” because I concede that Trump never quite connects the dots and says that he expects Patel to go after the “enemy within” using vindictive or politically motivated investigations. And Patel, to my knowledge, has never said that as FBI director, he would launch the many malicious and selective prosecutions Trump has called for. So the crowd committed to putting their heads in the sand about what Trump is doing here have at least some sand with which to work.

Is Anyone Happy With the UN Cybercrime Convention?

Karine Bannelier and Eugenia Lostri discuss the UN convention on cybercrime, determining that neither the private sector, nor civil society, nor even the signatories are satisfied with the outcome of the treaty, and that democracies that voted “yes” must work to ensure that the treaty’s provisions are not abused for authoritarian purposes:

Reaching consensus on combating cybercrime is a boon to multilateralism at a time of tense geopolitics and overall growing dissatisfaction and skepticism about the role that multilateral organizations can play. One could expect that any agreement that satisfies Russia and the U.S. at the same time would be little more than symbolic. However, the cybercrime convention has raised concerns for the private sector, civil society, academia, and experts. The unlikely coalition is concerned that the treaty could be easily misused to target dissidents and security researchers, undermine fundamental freedoms, and facilitate censorship.

The Australian Government Will Shut Down AN0M Evidence Appeals

In the latest installment of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren breaks down the news, including Australia’s guarantee of the admissibility of the AN0M crimephone sting operation, CISA’s new red team assessment report, Microsoft’s appeal to Trump to “push harder against nation-state cyber attacks, especially from Russia and China and Iran,” and more:

This is an extremely unusual move, but there is a lot at stake here. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) described the AN0M operation as the "largest organised crime investigation in the Southern Hemisphere" and if the evidence is ruled inadmissible there may not be another opportunity to strike such a large blow against organised crime.

Podcasts

On today’s Lawfare Daily podcast, Roger Parloff talks to Claire Meynial about her recent book, “La Guerre des Amériques,” or “The War of the Americas.” The pair discuss how she came to write her book about political divisions in America, the results of the 2024 election, the January 6 insurrection, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, Jan. 6 defendant Guy Reffitt, and how the French public responded to all these events:

A few days ago, I sat down with Anastasiia Lapatina and Eric Ciaramella to discuss the Russian launch of a new ballistic missile against Ukraine, the failure of ATACMS to turn the tide of the war, the erosion of Ukraine’s front, and the weird Ukrainian optimism about the new Trump administration despite it all:

---

Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the capybara, a beast of dignity and grace, seen here, in a video by @yu_haradakei, choosing to be repeatedly bonked on the head. The capybara reminds you that cranial trauma is good for the soul, and recommends the use of an empty paper towel roll if you don’t have a bamboo water feature available: