8 ms·
> but it's influence on politics is very real. > Personally I don't think this acquisition is healthy for a democracy Fewer than a quarter of Americans use Tw
by PainfullyNormal 4y ago
> but it's influence on politics is very real.
> Personally I don't think this acquisition is healthy for a democracy
Fewer than a quarter of Americans use Twitter. Empty rhetoric is empty.
- _aavaa_ 4y agoSure, but it seems like that quarter contains, for starters, essentially all of the mainstream journalists.
- PainfullyNormal 4y agoMaintstream journalists write what the owners of their publications tell them to write, especially when it comes to politics. The idea that a change in ownership of a relatively small social media company is going to have a "profound impact on democracy" is stupid. Especially since nobody seems to have a similar problem when a major media conglomerate changes ownership.
- lapcat 4y ago> Especially since nobody seems to have a similar problem when a major media conglomerate changes ownership. They had a problem when Jeff Bezos purchased The Washington Post.
- mapme 4y agoThis is assuming that political power comes from influencing all Americans rather than a small fraction who hold true power (politicians, donors, journalists, industry groups, etc.). If the small fraction is all on Twitter then viola the rhetoric is meaningful.
- jerojero 4y agoEvery politician uses twitter. Every politician's speech is dictated by what their followers believe, it is in many cases the most direct form of communication they have with their constituents. I don't like this situation, but it is our reality. And not just politicians, but as others have said, everyone in any sort of position of power is bound to have twitter. From corporations to personalities. Of course, there are other social medias but a lot of the speech and discussions that happen in the world are somewhat mediated by twitter.