Quick test. Just go to Google and do a random search on any random hot topic. Typically it may come up with a billion or more results. How many of them are from Facebook? Not even 1%.
And Google doesn't even cover even one percent of the internet:
“ According to a study published in Nature, Google indexes no more than 16 percent of the surface Web and misses all of the Deep Web. Any given search turns up just 0.03 percent of the information that exists online (one in 3,000 pages).Apr 1, 2015”
it is categorical error to assume that volume somehow equals influence, when around 80% of the population have social media accounts.
I have never been on social media and my life is much richer because of that.
You assume that just because someone is on social media it means they spend their lives on social media or are going to be influenced to vote one way because Twitter told them to. Not so.
As for Twitter censoring or deleting anything. ..it means zilch.
Twitter/Face/YouTube banned Alex Jones and Infowars no?
Well right now he is more available and as popular as ever. You can still go to Infowars.com and watch any video of his and read any articles you want. His radio show is as popular as ever and you know what? Twitter can't do sh*t about that.
https://www.infowars.com/
You also forget the huge audience and massive influence that talk radio hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage et al have using good old fashioned radio.
Rush has more influence with one broadcast than a million Facebook posts.
It’s not the information available that makes a difference; but, the information accessible. That 16% indexed by google accounts for 90+% of the information most people see, and even a subtly influence can make a huge difference in what the general pubic perceives. Add that to the monolithic drumbeat of of social media, and it is very significant.
I don’t do social media, either, and I don’t miss it; however, we are probably outliers in this regard. Radio is dying, just as quickly as newsprint; that’s just a fact. Their audience is older and their methods outmoded. Why listen to a “program” when you can listen to personalized content? Podcasts are much more concise, and more targeted—and younger consumers prefer the format over traditional means.
I’m not arguing that it’s good or right; however, the social media giants act as gateways for content providers—the problem isn’t whether you can post your content on your .0001% esoteric blog, or if your message will be given real a chance in the modern public square. This censorship is bad for public discourse, and constitutes a hazard to our republic.