Okay, so some observations after a week of social media turmoil:
- A LOT of #LawTwitter people (including a fair number of law profs) migrated to Bluesky last weekend.
- It appears that many of them already had invite codes but didn't use them until Twitter melted down (again).
- Related: At least one of my friends noted that during the last Great Migration (November) they weren't really sure Twitter would implode, so they weren't ready to jump (or fully jump) quite yet
This view may be obnoxious to most lawyers, so give me a good reason to believe otherwise...
I've contended that the necessity to be able to defend either side of a legal issue, in law school, removes the metric of morality for academic purposes. And regardless of the personal ethics qualifications to graduate & enter the bar, the sense of the propriety of a morality is never academically reinjected.
The same moral dispassion is being used in the selection of social media sites. The migration is not toward sites that reflect common community morality (i.e., away from sites that cater to inflammation, extremism, and creating bigotries), but toward those that provide the most extensive professional opportunity.
In short, I think there are many businesses that give little thought to the strength of good media leadership and reasonable conversation, in deference to profit, of which lawyering is one.
I've no law school experience. There were a couple of 'law for commanders' courses I had to take (and was mediocre in), but the issues there were skew to what I brought up here. I've known a number of lawyers, most excellent people, but a couple of which have been disbarred, and I'm drawing from conversations with and observations of those individuals. Thank you for a comprehensive reply.
Sarah Fackrell
Stu Duerson, machina exo deus