Tweeting Politics

Personally, I'd rather just make a law deeming all social media sites an invalid source of information and stop quoting public officials on MSM as if it's some cold hard fact. Of course, there's also the no small issue of complete one sided opinionated validity to these sites. Yet, if they were still given that much credit would people even care or still be on them?

"...when the looting starts, the shooting starts."
-Trump Tweet May 2020

Based on a single presidential tweet and out of context text message exchange, Jake Gardners life was forever forfeit. His self defense act turned suicide months later after going through the social media wash of slander, speculation, and defamation, could otherwise been a much different outcome if Twitter and Facebook were treated like the tabloid news they are.

JAKE GARDNER THREAD

[slug.com]

Whenever it comes to posts on Twitter and Facebook (more specifically political ones), I have the same two questions:

1. Why are Twitter and Facebook (mostly these two but other social media as well) given so much credit and validity.

2. If Twitter and Facebook are truly supposed to be a source of pure "fact" (whatever that means), then why are they regulated by only one party. (Shouldn't it be bipartisan?)

I left Facebook 5 years ago and only opened up a Twitter account the end of 2019 for the first time. The reason why I got a Twitter account was because I was tired of not being able to see for myself what the big deal was considering it's quoted all over MSM constantly.

Twitter gives you a limited character max which is most often filled with memes and declarative statements. It's not exactly the great forum of political debate I was expecting, considering this is the top "source" our president is quoted from. In fact, my first experience visiting Trumps twitter feed and comment section was a complete buffoonery of memes, insults, and slander akin to that of an adolescent frat party. It's a joke.

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare."
-Trump Tweet June 2015

Considering the current year, 2020, and the dated quote, 2015, it would appear not even time is relevant when it comes to single sentenced, declarative, statements. Additionally, it matters little that it wasn't even an official presidential quote, having come before he was elected.

Most recently, during the Amy Coney Barrett hearing, I had the displeasure of not only hearing yet again more Trump tweets, they were blown up poster size and put on display. A childish presentation of zero context and implied connection to a woman who is highly qualified. It was embarrassing. To think the source of memes, kicks, slander, and giggles is being presented as a question or argument would be the bar of standard for our Senators and public officials is almost laughable, if it wasn't so sad.

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., presented Barrett with a poster-size picture for Trump's 2015 tweet on how he'd expect his nominee to rule on healthcare.

[foxnews.com]

AMY CONEY BARRETT THREAD

[slug.com]

All that being said, I do think that Twitter and Facebook should monitor their sites however they like. They are hardly a credible source of information as it is, afterall. Unfortunately though, they have and continue to be a quoted source of fact and therefore are now in different standing than their original designs of casual interactions.

So, either:

1. Twitter and Facebook are no longer a valid source of information and news. They can monitor their sites however they deem fit, including up to the president.

2. Twitter and Facebook are a valid source of information and therefore must be required to have strict guidelines requiring all users to provide identification verification to become a member. Each post must meet bipartisan fact check, as well as quality standards (i.e. spelling and grammatical errors or misquoted information). All statements made must require full article and source links. Paid membership will be required to view higher official pages (president etc) and comments will be monitored for approval until a certain time has passed. Independent news and opinion articles will be subject for approval if they fall outside the deemed list of requirements ensuring bipartisan objective content.

I can think of dozens more ways to make Twitter and Facebook a PIA, for "the greater good" and ensure their "unquestioning credibility". I mean, the ridiculous ways these sites are monitored currently (for the sake of maintaining credibility), are already heading in a similar direction of overly heavy handed censorship. It's just done one sidedly.