Greenberg: No, Mayor Lurie, Twitter Didn’t Cause San Francisco’s Woes

San Francisco, once a shining beacon of innovation and culture, is grappling with a harsh reality: shuttered storefronts, rampant drug use, persistent homelessness, crime, and a fiscal mess. Previous Mayor London Breed and now Mayor Daniel Lurie have both pointed fingers at social media, claiming online tweets and posts fuel the City’s economic downfall. This is a lazy and convenient but misguided way to scapegoat and sidesteps the real culprit.

Clearly, social media didn’t spark the opioid crisis, drive people onto the streets, embolden criminals, slash police budgets, shield drug dealers, build tent encampments, launch mass retail lootings or balloon the city’s $16 billion budget. Curiously, mainstream media has often sidestepped in-depth reporting on those issues, leaving social media—especially citizen journalists with a phone as camera—as the primary lens exposing San Francisco’s struggles. Blaming advocates’ Twitter accounts is a distraction from real systemic failures. Is Mayor Lurie suggesting portrayals of reality be censored?

San Francisco’s troubles are rooted in City Hall’s systemic failures, not tweets. The opioid crisis, with open drug use persistently plaguing areas like the Tenderloin and SoMa, stems from inadequate addiction and mental health resources, not social media. Policies perceived as protecting drug dealers—lenient enforcement or harm reduction approaches—reflect bad City Hall decisions, not X/Twitter posts. Homelessness, a glaring issue, is driven by a drug addiction, shortage of affordable housing and insufficient shelters. Crime spikes, like retail theft and car break-ins, tie back to policing gaps. Police budget cuts were policy choices, not social media campaigns. The city’s $16 billion budget and $800 million deficit result from declining tax revenue and unchecked spending, not online chatter. Retail closures and post-pandemic woes, like reduced tourism, a downtown ghost town and remote work policies, are economic realities, not the work of right-wing video accounts.

Mainstream media’s retreat from covering San Francisco’s gritty realities is striking. Major outlets, perhaps wary of political blowback, have left an obvious void that social media reporting fills today. Citizen journalists on X/Twitter share raw footage of shoplifting, drug deals, or encampments, doing the work of what was traditional investigative reporting. These posts, whether from left, right, or center, reflect lived experiences, not partisan agendas. They pressure leaders, much like exposés once did. Blaming social media for shining a light on these issues is like blaming a journalist for reporting a scandal—it’s the problem, not the messenger.

Prior to being elected, Daniel Lurie, a nonprofit executive and Levi Strauss heir, was a political outsider driven to address the city’s escalating challenges. Motivated by frustration with San Francisco’s struggles—homelessness, public safety, drug overdoses, and a faltering post-COVID economy—Lurie ran to bring accountable, fresh leadership to City Hall. As a father, he stated he was compelled to act, unable to justify the city’s deteriorating streets, marked by open drug use and encampments, to his children. Positioning himself as a non-politician, Lurie capitalized on voter dissatisfaction with incumbent Mayor London Breed and a yearning for change. His campaign resonated with residents seeking a reset from deeply entrenched bureaucracy, leading to his historic election as the first mayor without prior government experience since 1911.

But Lurie’s rhetoric today raises red flags. Citizen journalism, regardless of political leanings, fosters accountability, not economic ruin.

The real issue isn’t social media—it’s the city’s failure to tackle root causes.

Mayor Lurie screwed up, plain and simple. He is getting deserved heat for his gaff caught on video. More meaningfully, he could have said yes drug dealing is still prevalent, and we must end it. He could have said his recently established Triage Center wasn’t working and it should be shut down. He could have said he appreciates actual, visual confirmation things aren’t going as he planned, so it’s time for tough love to cancel failing programs and policies, to hold them accountable as he campaigned on. But he didn’t. He chose to instead blame the messenger: the citizen journalist.

This is on him.