4-18-13 UPDATE 2: Cleared by investigators. Multiple sources say 2 young men cleared of any involvement.

Twitter has proven the source of breaking news time and again when traditional media outlets fail. The Representative Anthony Weiner scandal, Fast and Furious, and more recently the Gosnell death trial have all gained nationwide attention due to the mountains of information available via social media.

We just might thank Twitter once again when it comes to the Boston Marathon bombings if David Shor is correct in his prediction.

Shor, who uses the Twitter handle @IshYimini, spent more than 2 hours last night researching, posting and trying to get the attention of media regarding a photo of a man in the crowd near the finish line carrying a large nylon bag. The bag, with thick black and grey strap, bears a striking resemblance to the one used in one of the two bombs found in the rubble.

Shor said that he has contacted the FBI about his research, but as of the early morning hours of Wednesday hadn’t heard any updates.

Officials have not yet named a suspect in the terror attack, nor have many details been released about the person or persons who are to blame. Perhaps trolling Twitter could lead to some promising leads.

See the original crowd photo here: Flickr.com/photos
*****************************************

4-17-13 UPDATE: More INCREDIBLE comparison photos here: IMGUR.com

*****************************************
Follow EJ Haust on Twitter!

petersnoopy (CC)

Instead, a picture posted Thursday on the North’s Flickr site shows Kim’s face with a pig-like snout and a drawing of Mickey Mouse on his chest. Underneath, the text reads: “Threatening world peace with ICBMs and Nuclear weapons/Wasting money while his people starve to death.”

Another posting says “We are Anonymous” in white letters against a black background. Anonymous is a name of a hacker activist group.

Tweets, on the other hand, simply said “hacked”, and offered links to North Korea related sites. As a rule, the accounts are used to promote state initiatives, praise the North Korean system of government, and promote commentaries from the state-run media outlet – Korean Central News Agency. The Twitter account has been open since 2010, and has approximately 13,000 followers.

Is it just a fun craze or will it cause problems down the road? Further encouraging these awkward and possibly humiliating smart phone shots of drunken friends is a new Twitter account inviting students from the University of New Hampshire to tweet pictures of their passed out pals.

The “UNH Blackout” Twitter page shares graphic pictures of unconscious young adults who imbibe in too much alcohol. As seen in the video, many of the UNH students find the photos amusing and think these compromising shots are just in good fun.

The students may be surprised when they apply for actual jobs to discover that employers now regularly check the internet and social media for applicant information. They may be further surprised to learn that, once posted, nothing is ever really gone from the internet.

When I say criminals I am not just talking in the abstract; I am referring to real criminals.

According to a study from the online publication Capitol Hill Blue, the American people have elected a bunch of politicians that are better at breaking laws than making laws. America’s low information voters have chosen some real class acts to represent them.

Just how bad are some of our members of Congress?

29 members have been accused of spousal abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 19 have been accused of writing bad checks, 117 have bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 have been arrested for physical assault, 71 have such bad credit that they can’t even qualify for a credit card, (yet with their special clearance as a member of Congress they get an Amex card without having a credit check.) 14 have been arrested on drug related charges, 8 have been arresting for shoplifting, and at least 84 members of Congress have been stopped for drunk driving but subsequently let go once they showed they were members of Congress.

If all that hasn’t made you lose your lunch this sure will.

According to the 2013 Congressional schedule, Congress will take 239 days off! That means they will only “work” 126 days of the year. If that wasn’t bad enough these hardly working, drunk driving, womanizing, bad credit, criminals get paid a minimum of $175,000 a year. Not bad for 126 days of so called work. They have worked themselves so hard that they don’t even have the strength to create a budget. The last time our dedicated public servants passed a budget was April 29, 2009. That is an unbelievable mind boggling 1,415 days without a budget, and counting.

This article’s intent is not to highlight the ineptness and unprincipled actions of our corrupt Congress; instead its purpose is to illustrate just how incidental and unnecessary Washington, DC has become. Former Republican Presidential nominee Rick Perry may not have been able to talk his way out of a paper bag; however he had the political will and courage to tell the American people that if he were to be elected President he would make Congress a part time job.

I couldn’t agree with him more. In fact, I’d like to take his suggestion a little further and dismantle Washington, DC altogether; and here is how we can do it.

We live in a virtual and digital society in which nothing seems impossible. The constant advancements in technology have created a very mobile society. We live in a world where you can start your car, turn the lights on and off in your house, and check your blood pressure, all by using your I-phone. There is no reason why Congress can’t conduct official government business from their respective state Capitols. Think about how much money they could save in travel expenses and housing alone?

With email, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, video conferencing, and websites such as gotomeeting.com; there is no shortage of technology that could be utilized to perform the everyday functions of Congress from outside of Washington, DC.

According to census.gov, 1 out of 10 workers over the age of 65 works from home. This is a growing trend that is only going to continue as more businesses look for ways to cut operating expenses and increase productivity. With so many older workers still in the workforce due to the Obama economy; many of these workers work from home.

Companies that employ workers who telecommute save on expenses such as office space, equipment, furniture, and supplies. Employees who work from home are able to save money on such expenditures as clothing, childcare, parking, and gasoline. Also, some studies have shown that workers who telecommute are more effective and efficient at their jobs than those who work in the office. Why not extend that same invitation to members of Congress?

According to statistics from the 112th Congress, the average age of a member of the House of Representatives is 57 years and the average age of a member of the Senate is 63 years. These folks should be required to work remotely from their respective states and only come into Washington a few times a month to cast votes.

Washington, DC is 68.3 square miles of influence, corruption, and centralized power. The only way to change Washington is to remove the influence, corruption, and power from it; and that starts with Congress. The only way to do this is by forcing members of Congress to not congregate permanently in Washington, DC.

A suggestion would be to pass a law in which no member of Congress is allowed to have permanent residence within 100 miles of Washington, DC. By doing this you automatically decentralize the influence and power, and make it harder for lobbyists and power brokers to influence fiscal policy. This is how you change Washington, DC.

To some who are reading this I understand it may sound a bit Orwellian. Telling free people where they can and cannot live may seem a little extreme. What is more extreme is having career politicians drunk with power spending future generation’s money on programs they can’t pay for. We are at a time in our nation’s history in which the only real solutions require real drastic measures.

The truth is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we take away Congress’s power we can return it to its rightful owners; we the people. Most Democrats who read this will think I’m crazy. Even some Republicans will think this is a bad idea; however most limited government Conservatives will love it. My only hope is that those members of Congress who believe in freedom, liberty, and limited government read my article and introduce legislation based on this idea. A good idea can only become a great idea when it is acted upon.

As a political strategist, commentator, and radio talk show host my job is to give solutions, not talking points. I may not always be right, but I am always thinking outside the box about different ways to make America a better, stronger, and freer country. If we are serious about saving this country and truly believe in a limited government it is time we put our money where our mouth is and dismantle Washington, once and for all.

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Dreams from my surrogate father
Now that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned who should replace him?
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters
The puppets of Pyongyang

Twitter’s director of information security, Bob Lord,  said that they detected unusual access patterns including unauthorized attempts to access user data. The data accessed included usernames, email addresses and passwords.

This attack was not the work of amateurs, and we do not believe it was an isolated incident. The attackers were extremely sophisticated, and we believe other companies and organizations have also been recently similarly attacked.

The attack seems to have been limited to usernames, email addresses, session tokens and encrypted/hashed passwords. To protect the Twitter users who may have been compromised, the social media giant has reset passwords and revoked session tokens for accounts suspected of being hacked.

When: Thursday, Janurary 17th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: I am joined by bestselling author and Breitbart.com editor, Ben Shapiro, attorney and Twitter warrior Todd Kincannon, and The Young Cons co-founder, Josh Riddle . This is how the Right learns offense.

When: Thursday, December 20th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: I am joined by @TheTwisters to have a candid discussion about family values in America and why nine women who met on Twitter decided to jump head first into politics. Please follow all of The Twisters on Twitter: @0402sgrl, @1SupremeGoddess, @Conservativeind @asskickymchotti, @runedart, @hipechik, @suzibasterd, @flyingpatriot, and me… @GaltsGirl

It isn’t surprising that at least a few would take the opportunity to attempt to communicate directly with the Pope about the Catholic Church covering up the scandal of child molestation by priests. It remains to be seen if the Pontiff’s personal Twitter account will be used to answer such questions, if they receive answers in any form from the Vatican.

Of course there was also the profane. I do not believe in a deity, and while I was raised Catholic, I excommunicated myself from the church over a decade ago. However, even at the lowest points, I can truthfully say I never considered spewing profanity at any religious leaders within the Catholic Church – let alone the Pope. Believe, disbelieve – agree, or disagree, it doesn’t matter. This nonsense is a symptom of the fact that people are not raised to respect themselves or each other anymore.

On the other side of the child molestation issue are the victims. These tweets will unfortunately be too common – perhaps some will be fabricated, although it is hard to wrap one’s mind around the concept of anyone doing such a thing. However, the bottom line remains that if the Pope will actually end up reading the tweets sent to his personal account, these should be some of the most difficult for him to read. Again, it remains to be seen if this account will be used for any sort of personal interaction – no matter what, it probably is not wise to even suggest that these tweets receive responses publicly, no matter how much it might make the faithful feel better about the past (and present.)

As an atheist, and former member of the Catholic Church, I am ambivalent about this step into the 21st century for the Vatican. I would prefer to see modernization in other areas first, such as an abandonment of stringent restrictions against disease preventing condoms in the regions where they can do the most good, by not only preventing disease, but also reducing the number of children born into poverty. I’ve said many times to people of many faiths, that if their deity is omnipotent, and omniscient, there is no way humans could come up with something that their deity did not intend in the first place – good or evil. Well, we’ll have to see if this little foray into the world of social media has any affect on the Vatican going forward. Maybe direct exposure to the antipathy that is often expressed about religion in general, and Catholicism will break the Pope from his echo chamber in Rome. Maybe this will be a real chance for him to see the views of the people, unfiltered. Or more likely, this will just be an account managed by one underling or another in Vatican City. We shall see.

Do Democrats see the United Kingdom as a model for their version of the surveillance society?  What on earth could Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) be thinking offering legislation that gives authorities access to personal information with no more than a formal written request and the contents of those communications with nothing more than a subpoena?

According to Declan McCullagh of C|Net, Sen. Leahy thinks it’s perfectly fine for law enforcement officials to troll your emails, twitter, and Facebook without a warrant.  It’s a perverse exploitation of the law, which hasn’t caught up to 21st Century standards – and any American who values their liberty should be appalled by this gross incident of congressional overreach.

McCullagh wrote today that:

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It’s an abrupt departure from Leahy’s earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boastedlast year that his bill “provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by… requiring that the government obtain a search warrant.”

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys’ Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to “reconsider acting” on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

Here are the revisions:

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans’ electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans’ correspondence stored on systems not offered “to the public,” including university networks.

✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant — or subsequent court review — if they claim “emergency” situations exist.

✭ Says providers “shall notify” law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they’ve been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to “10 business days.” This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

Now, this afternoon, The Hill reported that the senator had no such intention to support a bill with warrantlees searches.

CNET has it wrong,” an aide tweeted from Leahy’s account.”Sen. Leahy does NOT support an #ECPA exception to search warrant requirement [for] civil enforcement [for agencies] like FTC, SEC.” A Judiciary Committee aide confirmed to The Hill that Leahy “does not support broad carve-outs for warrantless email searches.” Leahy is pushing a bill that would revise the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Leahy’s measure next week.

Ideas from many sources always circulate b4 a markup 4 disc., but Sen.Leahy does NOT support such an exception for #ECPA search warrants

— Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) November 20, 2012

But we must remain vigilant. As long as Federalism remains under threat, we must keep a close eye on bills, from both parties, that seek to make us safer – while sacrificing our freedoms in the process.

This will also be the first time many non-Republicans will get to see Mitt Romney in action. Tonight will be an opportunity for Romney to show America his “real” personality as opposed to what gets shown on the biased evening news reports from a negligent (yes, I used the word again because it cannot be overstated) national media. If played right, this could be Romney’s Reagan moment. Just like Reagan did in 1980 when running against Carter, Romney could have the opportunity to show a lighter side than has been painted in the media; to break away from the “evil Republican” caricature and give Americans the opportunity to say “Gee, I never realized he was such a likable guy”.

Already the mainstream media and the Obama campaign (one in the same, basically) have been hard at work lowering expectations for his performance tonight. There is no doubt that this debate is Romney’s to lose…but then again, Republicans have always been good at securing defeat from the jaws of victory.

There should be no issues finding a broadcast to watch this evening as nearly every major station will be covering the event, but here is a link to one live stream if you prefer to watch online. And don’t forget to follow me on Twitter as I’ll be live-tweeting the debate tonight and that is ALWAYS entertaining. You can follow me @kiradavis422 or just click on the Twitter button right here on the site to get connected.

The reason is this, and it’s a simple one:  Klout cannot determine whether tweets are “good” or not, and a lot of people seem to get the idea that it can.  The service claims to measure how much influence you have, but all it really does is measure how many people reply to you on a social network site.

Users might think that a high Klout score means that they’re important or influential or that they say really good things, but all it really means is that people respond to them on sites like Twitter and Facebook.  And in a lot of ways, it rewards bad behavior.

Don’t believe me?  Below is the Klout score of a notorious (and some would say racist) troll on Twitter.  This is a man who has a relatively small number of followers, and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks he contributes anything “good” to Twittter, but he has a higher score than most people I follow, and it’s only ten points off of the highest scored Conservative tweeters I know.  He did this by insulting pretty much anyone he comes across and watching his Klout score climb as they respond to his vitriol.  It’s just that easy.

This is not to say that the only way to attain a high Klout score is to spam and insult people; there are plenty of good folks on social media who contribute good things and are rewarded everyday, but it is dangerous, if not reckless to conflate high(er) Klout scores with good tweeting, or even good behavior.  We have to use our brains and try to keep track of the worthwhile tweeters, ourselves.  We can’t just assume that high scores equal good contributors.

It’s not just trolls you have to consider, either.  Another reason that Klout can’t be trusted as the end all be all and arbiter of who is a good tweeter is that it has no way of knowing which tweeters have been blacklisted.  I discussed blacklisting of tweeters on Saturday’s show, but I can offer some examples here too.

Simply put, when well known or influential tweeters want to shut down someone they see as a rival, they often put out ultimatums to their followers to not retweet, follow, or reply to certain people.  While I primarily spend time in Conservative circles on Twitter, it’s not just politics where this happens.  Just today, I saw a comedian discussing how comedians put the same kind of pressure on people in their circles to freeze rival comedians out.  I’m sure this takes place in plenty of demographics on social media, but Klout has no way of knowing when this has happened to someone.  As such, Klout can never be trusted as a tool to point you to the “good” people on social media.  It can only point you to who is “popular”.  And a lot of people have become “popular” by either trolling or being manipulative.  Again, a higher Klout score does not mean that the person or their content is any “good”.

So what do we do?  Should we dismiss Klout altogether?  That’s a tough question.  Because even if Klout did perfectly determine who was providing good content, you’d be doing yourself, and everyone else, a disservice by using it to discriminate in favor of or against people based solely on a Klout score.  In my gut, I feel that there could be good uses for a site like Klout, but when pressed to tell you some of what they might be, I come up empty.  So, as things stand, I can’t recommend the use of Klout as tool for determining good tweeters or content, but I’m not ready to completely give up on the site either.  My advice is to take Klout scores with a grain of salt, or better yet, a ten pound bag.  We still have to determine where good content is coming from for ourselves.

Mikamatto (CC)

However, I thought it might not be a bad idea to take this opportunity to point out a few interesting facts about BDSM that were apparently either skipped entirely, or at least misrepresented in the novel. First, I’d like to start with something obvious – yes, there are conservatives out there that engage in some form of BDSM, whether it involves inflicting pain, or simply involves a dominant and submissive relationship dynamic (D/s). Come on now folks! Let’s start using those little gray cells, shall we? There are some out there that would argue that many “traditional” marriages are really just committed D/s relationships, with one being generally dominated by the other. It’s logical, if you really think about it. If both are dominant, logic says they’ll constantly battle each other for supremacy. On the other end, neither one wants to take charge, so they can easily end up being undecided about the simplest of things. Now, if one is relatively dominant, and the other relatively submissive, that lends itself to a much more harmonious existence. Add a few sex toys to the bedroom, and that’s a recipe for a kinky relationship.

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Now, onto the little things that bothered me about that lovely little book. First of all, anyone that decides to get into a master and slave contract with someone without knowing them for quite some time beforehand is downright insane. And no, I’m not buying that a virgin would jump into that lifestyle from the beginning either. But, the biggest fallacy is that the dominant is completely in control. The author made a valiant effort to show the dynamic accurately, but missed the target by failing to stress that the submissive is actually the one in control. Assuming that it is a safe, sane and consensual relationship in the first place, the dominant cannot do anything without the prior permission of the submissive. The dominant only has power because it is given by the submissive. That message needed to be repeated, and often. It’s irresponsible not to do that in this sort of writing, since it could (and did) have a wide general appeal. I’m not even going to get into the little details that just don’t ring true.

In case you didn’t guess it yet, I’m not writing this from a theoretical point of view. This is a “been there, and done that” for me, and no, I am not answering on whether or not it’s only in my past – my personal life, my marriage, my choices, my business. But, I will say a little bit more about my past. I’ve known several politically conservative couples over the years that consider themselves members of the BDSM community. Honestly, the majority of the couples I knew with dominant men paired with submissive women were conservatives. That is my personal experience, so it is anecdotal at best. But, that doesn’t make it meaningless either. And, my personal introduction to at least part of this world was with two men (not at the same time, of course!) that were conservative.

My primary point is that what people do in their bedrooms used to be at least relatively sacred, as in others respected their privacy. And any intimate matters used to be off limits. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Sometimes it takes the form of people wanting government to help them “save people’s souls” from sin. If anyone doesn’t know my lack of concern for those non-issues by now, they haven’t been paying attention. But what really disturbs me is what appears to be a rampant disease of trying to dig up dirt on other conservatives – out the skeletons in their closets, or otherwise ridicule them. In case you can’t guess, I have nothing but contempt for people that do that sort of thing. That’s saying something, since there was a time when I wasn’t above yanking skeletons from the closets of politicians.

So, here it is – conservatives can be kinky. There is no law against it. There is nothing to be ashamed of if one chooses to do something off the wall in the bedroom, as long as it’s “safe, sane and consensual.” And there is nothing wrong with conservative adults enjoying or creating visual or literary arts that depict those kinky activities. I understand that there are many conservatives that find this sort of thing offensive, and that’s obviously fine as well. It is not fine for conservatives to force each other to view, read about, or participate in kinky sex. That said, like it or not, this is one thing the Libertarians got right – the intimate relationships of life are not meant for public or governmental interference. That’s why we call them “intimate.”

*Special thanks to Kurt Schlichter for being his #caring self, and coming up with the title for this post!

eldh (CC)

The following are a few suggestions for new folks (and veterans that are getting weary of the craziness):

1. Trust your instincts – Twitter is a quick ride, and can get heated. If you want to engage in arguments with people for sport, so be it. You will find no shortage of folks that enjoy doing the same. However, if you don’t want that, go with your gut, nothing else. It doesn’t matter if the user that’s offending you, (or even scaring you) has 10 followers or a million. It’s your choice what you read, who you follow, and what content you want to see on Twitter.

2. It’s Just Twitter – If you find yourself thinking that what you see on Twitter is “life”, it’s probably time to step back for a while. There are many users in the political realm that seem to literally live on Twitter. Some do, but the vast majority are probably taking advantage of one or more means of auto-tweeting to get their messages out. There are also many “pros” out there – journalists, writers, bloggers, politicians, political consultants, etc. Usually they act professionally on Twitter, but sometimes they don’t. Again, go with your gut, and your brain on this one. If they’re giving you links or other content that is actually useful to you, re-tweet, and even try to engage with them. But don’t take it personally if they don’t respond. They might not actually be online, might have many followers, or just plain be busy. Yes, there are some that don’t respond because they only interact directly with a select few. But, if they’re giving you good information, that’s no reason to stop following them. Just think twice about whether or not you want to take the time to try to engage with them.

3. Help! They’re Coming to Get Me! – Like anything else in life, Twitter has its dark side. There are people out there that find it necessary to threaten people in 140 characters or less. They also might call others names, threaten to get everyone to stop following them, and many other crazy things. Sometimes they’ll act like they are super-hackers that can get every bit of personal information they want about anyone. Unfortunately, many times these users will have many followers, and will enlist some of them to assist in bullying others. Again, like from the beginning here, go with your gut. If you feel that they are an honest threat to you (maybe they managed to figure out something about you that you didn’t share in your bio, or anywhere else online), by all means, block them. It may seem counter-productive, since these people usually wear being blocked by almost anyone as a badge of honor. That’s fine. Let them. However, before you block them, do make copies of the offending posts, and if nothing else, paste them into a text file. Once you’ve done that, use “block”, not “block and report spam”. You may choose to contact Twitter with your concerns, and if you are truly afraid that someone online is going to hunt you down offline, you should contact local authorities. (Do not do that, unless you are certain that the individual is actually capable of tracking you down.)

Admittedly, the previous advice is not for those that are sporting for a fight, at least not until they get in deeper than they intended. However, it is sound advice from someone that has been rattling around the political world of Twitter for about four years now. It’s not about doing it right. It’s about getting what you want out of Twitter. There are no “laws”, contrary to what anyone might say. Sure, it’s nice to think about having thousands of followers, but the reality is that unless you’re a corporation or public figure looking to broadcast your message to the masses, less is more. Quality wins every time over quantity, if you’re looking for real interactions with others. Pay attention to posts from folks you like, and see who they interact with most. Build who you follow slowly, and don’t feel guilty about unfollowing folks if they start to annoy you, or no longer post anything that interests you. It is your Twitter, not anyone else’s, when it comes to determining who to follow and attempt to interact with. Don’t let anyone tell you any different.

First off…
WILL YOU  (@AiPolitics)  FOLLOW ME?
———————————————————
The short answer to this question is “yes”.
As long as you interact with me and you aren’t flat out disrespectful, I will follow you.  We don’t even have to agree with each other.  We can have polar opposite opinions (and share them), and I will still follow you.  All that I ask is that you interact (bc why would I follow someone with whom I have no dialogue?) and that you are not flagrantly disrespectful toward me.  The occasional kerfuffle is fine.  Name calling, generally, is not.

I’VE BEEN FOLLOWING YOU FOR A LONG TIME,
AND YOU DON’T FOLLOW ME BACK.  WHAT GIVES?
—————————————————————————
While I do follow almost anyone who’d like to conduct dialogue, I do not automatically follow people back just because they follow me.  I used to do that, and I ended up with a cluttered Twitter stream of people I couldn’t even recognize, and even worse, spam bots.  Try introducing yourself or inserting yourself into my conversations.  Once I realize you’re here for dialogue, I’ll generally follow you back.

DO YOU TRY TO PAD YOUR FOLLOWER-TO-FOLLOWING RATIO?
———————————————————————————————
No.  I honestly don’t pay attention to it anymore.  If six million people wanted to discuss topics that interest me, I would follow six million people.  Interaction is almost always the deciding factor in whether or not I follow you.

YOU SAID TO INTERACT WITH YOU.  I TRIED, BUT YOU DIDN’T RESPOND.
———————————————————————————————————–
Sometimes I simply do not have a “good” response, so I say nothing.  Sometimes your tweet did not appear in my “mentions” column, and I did not even know you had spoken to me.  And sometimes I think you’re “trolling” me or using a straw man argument.  I don’t mind disagreeing, but if I think you’re picking a fight just to see if you can “get my goat”, I’ll choose not to respond.  If you’re genuinely here for dialogue (and not just arguing), I will pick that up after you make a few attempts at talking with me.  Be persistent.  And if I don’t “ever” respond and you feel slighted, then let me know.  It may or may not be intentional, but I’ll usually talk it out with you.

WHY DID YOU MAKE THIS POST?
————————————————-
As I said before, when you don’t provide people with information, they often decide to just make assumptions and run with them.  Lately, I’ve been seeing more and more people broadcast their assumptions as if they were fact.  ie…
“@AiPolitics didn’t follow me back, because I didn’t agree with him.”
“@AiPolitics didn’t follow me back, because he’s trying to pad his follower-to-following ratio.”
“@AiPolitics didn’t follow me, because he’s jealous that I have more followers than he does.”

The last one is one of my favorites….  The new assumption on Twitter is that if you disagree with someone who has more followers, then you must “obviously” be envious.  This makes about as much sense as when Democrats say that if you disagree with President Obama, you must “obviously” be a racist, but otherwise intelligent people on Twitter still make this assertion.

Hopefully this post clears up a lot of misconceptions I’ve been running into lately.  If it doesn’t, feel free to tweet me with questions you may have.  Also, feel free to add some of your own Twitter follow policies in the comments below.  Maybe we can all clear up the misunderstandings that have been seen on Twitter lately.  (many of them can be avoided if people will simply ASK instead of ASSUMING)

The author of this post, Ai Politics, can be tweeted under the handle @AiPolitics at Twitter.com.