sites like Twitter and Instagram worked against him as the conversation shifted to whether Kaepernick should’ve taken a knee during the national anthem or not. This was to be expected, “as social media platforms such as Twitter are valuable for dissemination and spread of information but don’t facilitate in-depth conversations” (Spiro and Monroy-Hernandez, 9). It’s easier for the casual twitter activist to comment on Kaepernick’s actions rather than his motives. Acknowledging what Kaepernick kneeled for as valid requires conversation about the issue of racial oppression and action towards a solution. Social media sites like Twitter didn’t allow in-depth conversations like these to take place, they only spread information about Kaepernick kneeling.

​

Social media creates a platform for “collective action, allowing individuals to personalize their participation and interaction with the protest” (Spiro and Monroy-Hernandez, 14). While this interaction is personalized it’s not substantial, Twitter is brief and shallow, an improper platform for the conversation Kaepernick attempted to start via his protest. Twitter also has a high rate of news turnover, in a matter of days a story goes from trending to a non-story. Yes, there was a substantial spike in tweets surrounding Kaepernick in the days following his original protest. However, this was to be expected, as “activity tends to occur in bursts matching exogenous events in the offline environment.” (Spiro and Monroy-Hernandez, 10). Not only does Twitter as a genre prevent in-depth conversation from taking place, it also limited a sustained conversation over the motives behind Kaepernick’s protest due to its brief nature.