The only winning move is not to play.
Both Obama and Trump campaigns were signified by a major online, social-media presence. I'd expect that many future Presidents will be determined by their command of Social Media.
Social Media is the new television, the new Radio. Its the new media that is most significantly consumed by the population.
By "not playing", you resign your power to others who take advantage of this new form of media.
If you can, you do it behind the shield of a faceless corporate entity (that you own) doing the promoting, rather than tying statements to your own personal identity. You don't stop using Twitter or Instagram et al., you stop using them to project your personal opinions out into the world. Your opinionated discussions are reserved to people you trust and to smaller in-person environments where you can have a real dialogue of understanding and exchange.
If you want to build value in your own identity, you take on the risks to chase the rewards. I'd suggest strictly talking about work, and never deviating from that. If you leave that lane, these days everyone knows the risks they're taking, it's blatantly obvious.
You publicize your findings, you don't spout off about such and such highly charged partisan social cultural revolution topic that is just begging to get you in trouble if you twitch the wrong way. I think that's really plainly obviously the way you handle it. What's so hard about that? Oh I just couldn't help throwing out my meaningless 2cents on BLM while discussing my work on using machine learning to recognize giraffes standing next to stop signs; I just had to get my opinion about black-white relations out there in the open, because what I have to say about BLM is super important and could change the world. No, just publicize the findings.
I believe you have good points about keeping your work and personal lives as separate as possible and I believe your advice is very pragmatic. I don't, however, think it should be necessary nor is it realistic. Let's all go into sterile work environments for 8+ hours a day where we have to self-censor based solely on observations of how other people fucked up and angered the mob. Let's never celebrate each other's humanity at work in case they accidentally "twitch the wrong way", as you put it. Let's all just sand in line, the oppressed among us silent and powerless because they've been told they have no voice.
In reality, people's work is important and meaningful to them. People need the freedom to express themselves without having to calculate whether it's worth finding a new job tomorrow because a mob sniffed them out.
Ultimately, those "screaming masses" will vote and determine the future of this country. And by "eventually", I mean in less than 4 months.
> they'll eventually destroy themselves
Not before Election Day.
The social media groups have proven themselves to be powerful coalitions of voters, capable of coordinating mass movement and determining the future of our country.
Releasing yourself from the need to build influence and visibility in exchange for a life of genuine authenticity and virtue.
You do you, but my intentions here were absolutely rooted in the former.
You also set an example among members of your cohort. The incentive to "play" is social, and removing yourself from the game not only gives you more time and energy to devote to games with better ROI, but also increases the odds that people you know will do the same.
Is it really worthwhile to pursue "power" on social media? Wouldn't it be better if people weren't so susceptible to that sort of influence in the first place?
I loved that movie.