pull down to refresh
No elaborate ruse, just the forces of human civilization sloshing us about.
am I to believe that the social account of politicians and leaders are the actual person posting these notes themselves in real time?
The rational parts of my mind say obviously not...and yet I so badly want to believe that is Elon or Trump who posts from their respective accounts. I'd guess more than half the world holds similar feelings passionately enough that they're willing to stay in never never land and just believe.
Fair and logical assessment.
I didn't mean to suggest that all important public facing social accounts are not their own, just that there must be a large swathe that are too ingenuine to actually put themselves on the line. Some actually do come across as unfiltered and genuine.
I'd imagine national government and opposition routinely run there posts through a whole team of PR and legal scrutiny before they post more than 'GM' or a picture of their latest campaign photo-op.
Honestly, I think it is fair to call every big account into question. There is so much money to be made in the world of social media, and when we are talking about people like Elon or Trump or Taylor Swift it seems laughable that they might be doing their own posts (I mean, how do such people even have the time?), yet they are trying I think to make us believe they are. How else to explain Trump's unique style of tweeting? or the wild things that Elon says?
I'm going to try to answer your question!
For Elon, public owner of x, richest man, and generally smart dude who exhumes righteousness and serves as a reflection of the indignation of the righteous suffering of the downtrodden collective censored west, it serves the platform well to maintain a human presence that embodies its values. Particularly as Jack Dorsey gave birth to the platform and steered it well, before it became what it became, before now.
As for The Don, my memory stretches back to the dreamstate typo kofefe mystery which captured the imagination, and if I was to build a persona, it would be that of a non-digital-native age guy, a quirky but astute tychoon.
They definetly both appear to post the least orchestrated bulletins. There have been acccounts taken of control of, maybe. So, hard to say how else to explain! I'd say there's a need to foster belief in the dictat coming from the horses mouths. In the end, I'm in the same ballpark, where I choose to believe and I give it a pass. We both can assume policy originates from where it originates, and that's not the mouth of one or two horses.
If such high-level leaders, political or otherwise, can enter a live debate, talk coherently, humanly, and convince us they have more than an uncle Jim level of undersanding of the world, I think it lends more credence than a polit-bureau speaking for individuals (or a nation) at minimum, as a reflection of a free society with checks and balances on the direction of a nation.
Are you saying that the narrative of deep fakes was all an elaborate ruse to rouse us into trusting sources, as opposed to the evaluation and forensic study of primary evidence? Maybe that wasn't what you said, it could have just been the voice of the general from Ghost in the Shell, hacking my ghost as I read ;-)
I was thinking about the authenticity of media accounts while reading some the other day. I suppose another valid concern in addition to hacks would just be the general nature of assistants human or otherwise. I mean, am I to believe that the social account of politicians and leaders are the actual person posting these notes themselves in real time?