Thank you for generously allowing me to use your informative free platform. I’m grateful for real-time breaking news fresh from primary sources, unlimited access to authors and thought leaders whose work I admire, and the ever-flowing fountain of useful and inspirational information available each day.
However, there’s one thing that’s continually nagged at my inner grammar-girl. You keep suggesting “who to follow.” “Whom” is the correct objective form of the pronoun.
What’s that you say? It sounds a bit stilted and unnatural?
The 1927 Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage identifies this misuse of “who” as a grave error. Fortunately, according to H.W., it’s “so elementary that it is nearly confined to sports reporters and patrons of the as-to style and needs no discussion.” 
Robert Burchfield’s 1998 edition suggests a more lenient, socially aware approach (no longer disparaging the good sports reporters). The use of “whom,” it warns, could be seen as “moribund or at best as socially divisive.” We’re talking stifling, formal, and downright stuffy! Please pass the tea. 
While strict grammarians may lament the breakdown of this formal grammar rule, Fowler’s guide indicates that in many cases, the relative pronouns “who” and “whom” may be replaced by “that” or omitted altogether. 
Following this rule leaves us with the confusing variation, “That to Follow.”
Personally, I prefer the approach of James Thurber.
In his Ladies’ and Gentlemen’s Guide to Modern English, the author suggests replacing the elusive “whom” with “where.”
It must be done with caution. In certain cases, the use of “where” could cause yet another dilemma, according to Thurber. For example, suppose a writer is addressing a member of the British Cabinet and must decide between asking “Who are you, anyways” and “Whom are you, anyways.”
Asking “Where are you, anyways?” gets him nowhere. The only imaginable answer is “Right here.” The official’s identity remains sadly unknown. 
The Good News for Twitter.
Thurber may have the perfect solution for Twitter.
Replacing “who to follow” with “where to follow” could avoid the grammar controversy entirely.
In fact, it could open up an exciting world of possibilities. Instead of remaining in my cluttered office full of file cabinets, lights, ink, books, and bicycles, I could finally visit Switzerland, Russia, France, the Pacific Northwest, and Australia … after I write a few more sales pages to pay for it all.
For now, I’ll have to abandon the dream of exciting journeys filled with Parisian baguettes and towering Emirate skyscrapers for my familiar neighborhood coffee shop.
But perhaps there is another way to consider “where” we follow on Twitter and all of social media.
Where is Your Reading Leading You in Your Thoughts, Actions, and Location?
Are the people you follow moving in the literal or figurative direction you want to go in your career, relationships, and lifestyle? After all, what we fill our minds with every day can have a profound effect on our relationships, work, and personal development.
Are you filling your thoughts with …
• Positive attitudes?
• Logical comments?
• Insightful analyses?
• Entertaining or refreshing quotes or stories?
• Posts that lift your spirits?
• Encouraging words?
Are you surrounding yourself with a community of people you want to lead or emulate?
And are you contributing to the conversation so we can all become better speakers, writers, marketers, and friends?
It’s surprisingly easy to do on Twitter.
Do you have something to share? You can find me @judyolbrych.
Where are you?
Want to talk? Contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org or book a discovery call.
 Fowler, H. W. (1927). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. London, UK: Oxford: at the Clarendon Press prepared for G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.