Why Trump Fits so perfectly into the Social networks – Donald Trump is proud of his aggressive presence in the social networks – and convinced that they have helped him win the US election. What did he do better than Clinton?
In the end, he said it himself, in his first interview shortly after he had affirmed that no one had to be afraid of him just before his wife objected that she was trying to stop him when he reached the smartphone to the next Tweet: Yes, said Donald Trump, yes, he thinks Facebook, Twitter and Instagram helped him win the election.
Presumably, this was the only point in which the designated American president and many people who had not chosen him had agreed. The interview was broadcasted five days after the election, and for five days in America there was already the debate, not yet finalized, as to how great this aid had been and how decisive the outcome of the election. What role did the social networks play? In most of the articles, it was very obvious: more of a conflicting one.
Had they not offered the platform on which vast amounts of aggressive comments and claims could be spread? Had their algorithms failed to ensure that populist contributions, such as those that were the most emotional at the time, dominated the networks? Were they not creating filter bubbles and echoes, which the users obviously could not find or want to find by themselves? And above all, had not been spread on Facebook increasingly false notifications, “fake news”, mostly to the disadvantage of the democratic candidate?
New highlight of Internet disillusion
The report, for example, that the Pope had defeated Trumps. The news about Hillary Clinton’s illegal arms purchase. Numerous news on their fragile health. Or the theory that Michelle Obama is a man. Millions of times gelike, hundreds of thousands divided. Even President Obama spoke during the election campaign of a “cloud of nonsense,” which had apparently been created on Facebook.