Social Media and Politicians

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Nov 8, 2018.

  1. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    You'll have to ask whoever it be that presented that line about their rationale for having done.

    Red:
    That is undeniably so, but equally undeniable is, as the portion of my post you omitted in your above reply notes, that the social media mode of communication excludes material shares of our current society. Excluding them, even though it may not be a willful choice to do so, isn't acceptable to me.

    Furthermore, as I and Momma have subsequently discovered from a chat with my kids about Twitter, to receive messages from others, one must "follow" them by actively clicking on an icon called "Follow." That may seem innocuous enough to some, but, as my mother, a nonagenarian, noted, "Why on Earth would I declare to the whole world, and especially to someone whom I find disgusting, that I yet have an interest in knowing about their every word? I'd no more do that than show up at a Klan rally."

    Momma raised a fair objection by my reckoning. Nobody follows anyone whom they detest....One doesn't call on them, attend their parties, speak favorably of them or speak of them at all, and one most certainly doesn't give them the satisfaction of knowing one in any way gives any credence to them or their ideas. Of course, Momma, I, my kids, and others are civil sorts whereby we expresses our disapprobation by simply refraining from deigning to dignify those whom we despise. One can't very well do that if one must "follow" those, the objects of one's revulsion, whom one had rather consign to ignominy.

    Momma would be plucked to no end were she required to affirm, as "following" requires one to do, that she's paying attention to a person whom she doesn't like. Indeed, with regard to prideful "popularly whores," self-aggrandizers and obsequious and self-serving ingratiators -- "social climbers" as Momma calls them (being one has nothing to do with one's wealth) -- be they pols or not, following them'd is something she'd never do.

    I looked to see whether it is possible to obtain news via FB without being a FB member. I eventually found a FB page created by someone called "Breaking News." That is news, but, being but a "laundry list" of whatever is the latest thing posted, it's not particularly well organized.

    All that notwithstanding, the fact remains that to get Twitter or FB information, one must have access to a service for which one pays. The notion that one must pay anything to receive information from the nation's elected office holders is just wrong. When we arrive at the point where high-speed Internet access is free and delivered via very inexpensive devices -- something far less dear than smartphones, tablets and computers currently are -- I will object less to pols issuing their messages via web-enabled outlets, though even then, they should make their pronouncements on their own web page, podcast, blog, etc. -- something readers/listeners can access anonymously -- not via a mode that forces one to actively declare some measure of regard for them even though one has none.


    Contextual reference documents:

     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    That is true of any form of media.

    Some people don't have TVs, some people don't get newspapers, some people don't listen to the radio.

    To receive a news broadcast, one must buy a TV or radio and turn it on. To read the news, one must buy a newspaper.


    Social media is no different from any other form. The only way it is different is from your perspective - i.e. as someone who presumably takes TV, radio and newspapers for granted.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    Red:
    Seriously? I post a remark that refers to seniors and poor people being bereft of or not having access to the Internet, thus social media, and you respond with that retort.
    • 95.9% of U.S. homes are TV households, which the company defines as having televisions that receive traditional TV signals via broadcast, cable, satellite or a broadband internet connection. (Source)
    • Acumen/facility --> Potentially technologically "challenged," regardless of wealth/income: ~11% of the US population is 75 or older. (Source)
    • Income/wealth --> Poor enough that purchasing Internet access (via PC or smartphone) may not be possible:
      • In 2014, the nation’s official poverty rate was 15%.

        Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



        Accordingly, about 13% of the population (because I above noted 75+ year-olds, my "poverty" calculation omits everyone from the 65+ cohort pictured above; I don't know what share of the 65+ group is 75+), is plausibly likely to be excluded from messages delivered via social media.
    Using the ballpark approach depicted above, between the poor and the elderly, about 25% of the population stand to be excluded from communications made solely via social media. My estimate above comports favorably (given it's "quick and dirty" nature) with the direct evaluation of social media usage which currently is that ~23% percent of the don't use social media.


    Blue:
    TV and radio are very different from social media in that to use social media, unless one can do so using a free library computer (I have no idea of whether social media sites are blocked on such computers), one typically must incur a recurring cost of maintaining an Internet connection or maintaining a web-enabled smartphone, the latter being not only more expensive to buy, but also requires one to maintain a pricier phone account.
    • Radio or TV -- Buy the thing and one is done.
    • Phone/Broadband
      • Purchase equipment (smartphone and/or computer) -- every so often, one must buy a new one due to obsolescence)
      • Purchase service -- monthly recurring cost
        • There is a small subsidy -- about $19/month -- to help poor folks, but public assistance doesn't help much when one has to have an account that allows for as much data downl
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Social media lacks mediation - to get news from it, one must act as one's own journalist, editor, etc. Only a minority of people can do that.
    That is an advantage for the bad guys - they face no competent analysis or editing or opposition to their communications of falsehood.
     
    Xelor likes this.
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Yes.

    If people want to keep in touch with the world, they necessarily must keep up with the times to some extent.

    What about all the people saying they have no access to newspapers, because the only truly unilateral purveyor of news is the town cryer (free)? A reductio ad absurdum example to be sure, but it still makes the point: it is not the world's job to move at the pace of its slowest occupant.

    It is also not the world's job to proactively deliver up-to-date news to that person. They have a right to vote, nobody said they have the right to sit back and have government delivered to them at their whim.


    So, in that respect, the responses you provide are splitting hairs. They don't add up to an argument that disqualifies social media as the modern platform for political commentary.


    BTW, I don't subscribe to Twitter, that does not mean I can complain that I don't have access to the full glory of Trumpology.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2018
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Social media lacks depth of knowledge
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Yup. So by your own logic, TV should be disqualified, since almost 6% don't have access to it?


    They aren't. Public internet access is one of the reasons libraries still exist in the 21st century.

    Indeed. This is the splitting hairs part. Because now your argument has been reduced to "OK, I grant that access to political news does cost something (to bring it into my home), but I assert that it should not be more than x."
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2018
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Same is true of any other medium. Do you watch CNN, or do you watch Fox?

    The One True Impartial News source is a pipe dream.

    So does any other medium, since it is up to the user to find the source of news s/he considers to have the depth s/he seeks.

    TV and radio have shallow news feeds - as well as deep news. The internet just has more.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2018
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Guys, this is nothing more than the latest round of "the world is moving too fast. Slow it down so the rest of us can catch up." This has been a sign of the times since the first Homo Sapiens added a second colour to his cave painting palette.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The world is moving too fast .

    What has color got to do with this ?
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I think both you and Xelor have valid points.
    • That for people to participate in a democracy they need to make sure they can be contacted via some sort of media.
    vs
    • That the government has a responsibility to ensure inclusivity for ALL citizens regardless of access, wealth, location or other. ( all are equal under the law type issue)
    There are many circumstances that using the internet or mobile technology is not possible to inform the public.
    Just recently with the fires in California many had no cell phone or internet access due to mountainous terrain.
    Is this the responsibility of people or government to solve when it comes to publishing information that is relevant to all citizens and not just those who are fortunate to have access to high tech equipment?

    If people wish to participate in a democracy then of course they should make them selves available to do and it is the responsibility, obligation of the government to ensure that access is reasonably available.
    I am sure Trump believes that every one knows what he is Tweeting and that is a terrible presumption to make. ( there is no way to test that presumption either)
    • The internet provides very little authentic feedback as to who is or has been reading.( and what is actually being conveyed)
    • To assume that they ( the tweets) are taken seriously is dangerous to the security of the nation.
    • Losing credibility of the media used means that it becomes ineffective as a platform for communication of truthful facts etc...
    Trumps use of Twitter has forced many to consider it as merely administration gossip and not worth the reading.

    How many voters are illiterate?
     
    Xelor likes this.
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    The same thing has been said for millennia.

    It was the first technological advancement of public access to news.
    I had to go all the way to the next watering hole - where they charged me two spear points - just to get the latest migration news in two colours.
    News should be delivered to the people only in cheap ubiquitous charcoal.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    And they do - via TV, radio and newspapers.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    And credibility?
    How do you ensure credibility of a twitter post?
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Most mass media use editors to vet articles etc, but twitter and like do not.
     
  19. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    Red:
    I assert that the cost should not be more than it absolutely must be. I have no specific sum, X, that I would say it must/should not be more than.
     
  20. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    Actually, my reasoning is that TV must be included because it's the mode of communication that reaches the greatest quantity of individuals.

    As is implicit in my various prior post remarks, I have no problem with politicians and officials distributing their messages solely via social media. If they want to use social media, that's fine with me so long as they issue the exact same communication via TV/radio.

    I realize no medium achieves 100% "penetration," but officials/pols and the government has a duty to use communication mediums that reach as many people as it is possible to reach.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    They are, by definition, 100% credible. A tweet by Trump is guaranteed to be the thing that Trump tweeted. That is the POTUS, communicating.

    The question you're asking is: 'is Trump credible as a news source?'
    Correct. Nor is Twitter a news source. Twitter is the direct words of the person speaking, directly.

    If you want to know what the POTUS actually said today, you can be 100%.
    If you want to know whether what he said is credible, that is the agency of secondary pundits and checkers.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    All right then. So it is no more than the cost of walking to the public library to use the internet.
    If you want it in your home, then it is no more than the cost of the machine and the cost of the services to operate the machine.
    Problem solved.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Actual news sources - with mediation by journalists, editors, fact checkers, and so forth - exist in other media, including internet delivery.

    They do not exist in social media - by definition, essentially.

    Same can be made true of any medium, say Fox TV - but social media are intrinsically and unavoidably flawed as news sources in this way. They are gossip sources, not news sources.
     

Share This Page