To Tweet or Not to Tweet?

In the past I created a Twitter, I used it for about two months and thought to myself that it was a ridiculous form of social media. Who would want their number of characters to be limited and who wants to read the little snippets from people'e lives about mundane things? I followed a few news companies, such as The New York Times, Huffington Post, and Wall Street Journal, but in between the posts about what is going on in our country and the current events I see posts from friends saying things like "Finally enrolled in Amazon Prime, my snacks should be here in two hours" and "Update: my package arrived early" or one exact quote said "trying to get 21 savage drunk tonight." This is why I left Twitter, I couldn't handle the little tweets people left to update people about every moment of their lives, it made me wonder just how much time they spend on their phones rather than with other people and talking to them. Following news crews has brought about a different view for me about Twitter, it makes seeing what is going on much more accessible and I can view multiple sources at once, often times giving me a few perspectives on one event. I followed the three I stated before, because, one, I know someone who writes for the Huffington Post, and two, I liked how they developed from news papers. Being able to survive and function as a news paper means they must have been popular. They are also well known as reliable and that should be something one looks for in a news company.

The New York Times posted an article titled Cruella de Trump and left a little post of their words with it, which stated "Opinion: You can never be sure of anything that comes out of this White House, Except the cruelty." I read through the article and it became apparent to me that this was something I would share with others. It covered how Trump treats others and how he picks at the appearance of other people, mistaking cruelty for strength. This particular tweet stood out to me at first because of the title of the article, I thought it was clever, and then I read the little snippet about not being sure of the current White House today and thought that in that short sentence the New York Times was able to say something so powerful that many people could identify with.

I feel as though social media allows for more participation from the people in our democracy, but it isn't always used this way. I will be honest and admit that I mostly go online for fun and to look at Facebook Instagram and the pictures people post. Sometimes I will see an event that a friend said they were interested in or are attending that will peak my interest and I will look into, but I don't seek them out. I have no statistics and no proof that this is true, but I think that this is what a majority of people use social media for. One example of how it does provide a way for us to become involved is when the Women's March happened Facebook pages of the event became popular. They were created for cities participating and people could say whether or not they were attending and then further post information on these pages. I was involved in the Portland Women's March page, although was unavailable to attend the actual event. For those who saw it on the news or heard about it from others, this event was huge. Cities all over the country and overseas participated and I don't believe this could have happened without social media. It would have been more difficult to spread the word and updates on the event, people who needed a ride to the cities were able to through contacting others on the page who were going, and now these pages exist with many passionate people who could easily contact one another again to create another similar event.