Eventually, all topics end in politics, one way or another.
I found this article
interesting, although I thought some of the conclusions drawn rely on less-than-accurate portrayals of mass-digital Internet communications.
Users should be allowed to re-tweet anything within the platform's guidelines, if statements are factual. If the topic is political, which it may well be, how is that any different?
Obviously, many people auto-retweet the Pres account, and have filters set to select just the sort of content detailed in article. And, many use pseudonyms. Privacy protection is a GOOD thing, for those choosing such on systems that allow it. Why attack it??
And automation is what life's all about, no? Now that's a problem, according to the article.
"Amplification" is of issue, too? A CORE issue, in fact, we're told. Really?
What about using a bullhorn in public, or starting a newsletter that you distribute for free? That's also amplification, though few would argue that it's illegitimate. Your newspaper may have fifteen writers that are all really you. lol
There's an inherent mistrust of the Internet, even still. People strive to amplify their viewpoints, their business standing in the marketplace, and whatever else is important to them. All the time, not just online.
This article seems like "Internet Panic" nonsense, with the collected data sorted and presented out of context of actual use patterns on platforms like Twitter, but rather approached with a predetermined goal and desired outcome, making use patterns show a political undertone when it's not there.
It's just how people use the Internet in 2017.