Twitter: Did it mislead the ’16 Election?
Prior to delving into key issues here, it’s important to note that this blog is brought to you by RTA 902, the wonderful Hamza Khan’s “Social Media” course for Ryerson University. All views discussed are mine. And before we talk about Twitter and its prominent role within the 2016 Election, let’s talk first (and get some perspective on) society at large, and this “Post-Truth” dynasty we’ve dug ourselves in.
At a broad mass, the coined term social media has proven to be a oral reverb to voice our opinions to the macrocosm; we don’t know what that macrocosm is, what it’s about, or the repercussions that follow it. But what we do know is that there is a whole, gargantuan community that shares this opinion(s) bubble with us; a notion that enjoys lump sums of information, originality, and even more, creditability. Intellectuals alike once praised the liberty of these notions; giving humans a sense of integrity and liberalism to the Free World.
Alas, thanks to technology, we as a cultured society have immersed ourselves into an overwhelming sensation of integrity and creditability given the information that is fed through the algorithm. It has caused us to be incredibly hyper-cognizant of our surroundings, and given us the ability to transmit and synthesize said information into the hardwires of our brain at high velocity. Doesn’t it sound fantastic, and innovative? Absolutely. But what if that saturation of information via sources like Twitter is exploited and disarmed; what if it was told it lacks originality, and creditability?
As social media outlets like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and now Twitter arose, we saw a surge in a common algorithm within the medium. If you Google search “top places in Bahamas”, milliseconds later you would click on your Facebook tab and see an ad from Expedia saying, “Last minute flights + hotels to Nassau!”. It’s incredibly one-dimensional to see, but this said algorithm offers outlets listed above to exploit you to manipulated information, and transmit complex data through the “technosphere”. Thus, somewhere along the line, information is muddled and data is tailored to what you like, what you do, and in political times like these, what your views are. It’s simple, straight to the point, and an effective way to understand how to feed out information, for better or for worse; credible or falsified.
For so-called intellects like Mr. Donald Trump, social media (and eventually, Twitter) enabled a bold, derisive human to flourish on a platform to execute his electoral programme. His campaign was effective; cynical, charging, and highly pressuring. It allowed Mr. Trump to mould his beliefs and what he thought were “solutions” to America’s current crisis, and deliver it with a simple, straight to the point campaign. It induced a causal effect of division on social media to occur; and thus, an algorithm was produced. Democratic and liberal-minded folks versus more traditional, Republican right-minded folks were now in combat.
To a liberal-mind, Trump couldn’t have possibly won, no that’s crazy! Their Twitter feed was filled with people thought like them and shared the same opinions. Alas, the algorithm is in full effect.
Though many found Trump’s anecdotes nonsensical, it lured right and left-minded thinkers to his campaign bubble nonetheless. No matter how fear-mongering and intimidating it may have sounded, it birthed a new trend in contemporary politics. Each day Twitter allowed Mr. Trump to create a 140-word soundbite that CNN could easily fit into their breaking headline grid. It didn’t matter whether it was fact or fiction, racist or homophobic, sexist or even nationalist; it had the power to persuade. And bye golly, did he ever succeed.
In fact, it’s why Hilary Clinton lost. She had no social media presence due to the primitive fact that she had her “team” handle it. With that, she had no social media strategy; she didn’t use it to her advantage in a news-bent culture relying on Twitter for execution of information. And that is where her campaign team failed, because even though she remained composed, thought-provoking, and somewhat credible, she wasn’t original. She remained in the traditional-theories of politics where emotional (and physical) posture is the equivalent to leadership and power. But that’s not the case anymore.
