Net effect: Twitterati, a dangerous minority

A new study in the US says that the social media platform, Twitter, is “not quite as equitable and democratic as popular perception might have us believe”. It’s like the practice of lobbying — people might say, ‘How can that be effective when you’re talking to such a small group of people?’ But they’re the group that’s making legislation.” On November 16, 2016, The New York Times reported that ‘Election Day was a reminder of Twitter’s influence in media and the distribution of information. The British newspaper, The Independent, quoted data scientist David Robinson as saying that “Donald Trump’s tendency to use his Twitter account in the manner of a celebrity — by adopting an ‘off-the-cuff style’ in the tweets he publishes — was a contributing factor in the billionaire’s presidential victory.” According to The Independent, Robinson, who performed a statistical analysis of Mr Trump’s Twitter account in August 2016, said that Mr Trump’s tendency to tweet like an “entertainer” meant he was able to garner the “interest” of the American people, which in turn boosted his chances of election success. Thus, there has been optimum use of social media in politics.” Another post, this time on the World Economic Forum website, written by Prerna Kaul Mishra, on the Aam Aadmi Party’s victory in February 2015 Delhi Assembly elections, says: “Much of the election — or should we say the battle of perceptions — was fought on Facebook and Twitter. Professor Parmelee told The Guardian: “Twitter can set the agenda for what journalists are covering — just think about the ways Trump’s tweets have, over the course of the past six months, set the agenda.” During a speech titled ‘Truth In The Age Of Twitter’, organised by Asian College of Journalism in Chennai, Matthew Winkler, co-founder and editor-in-chief emeritus, Bloomberg News, said: “Trump’s continuous assertions became facts because the media reported them widely.