US President-Elect Biden Starts New Twitter Account, Criticizes Policy on POTUS Account (bloomberg.com) 237
"This will be the account for my official duties as President," tweeted U.S. president-elect Joe Biden on Thursday — but from a new account at @PresElectBiden (which will transition to @POTUS after Wednesday's inauguration).
But Bloomberg reports Biden is still "clashing with the social media company over its decision to deny the incoming administration millions of existing White House followers." Biden's transition opened @PresElectBiden in order to start building a following for one of the official accounts the new president will inherit at noon on Jan. 20: @POTUS. In a change in practice from 2017, when President Donald Trump entered office, Twitter Inc. plans to reset both the @POTUS and @WhiteHouse official accounts to zero followers for Biden. The two accounts currently have a massive audience — nearly 60 million followers combined, though there is overlap.
Trump got a head start in 2017 when he inherited about 12 million followers of @POTUS from President Barack Obama's tenure, plus millions of followers from other official accounts. Though Trump used his personal account, @realDonaldTrump, as his primary social media mouthpiece throughout his presidency, Biden's aides think it's unfair Twitter isn't handing over followers along with the official accounts...
Twitter said it is too technically difficult to copy or roll over the millions of followers from the Trump White House accounts to Biden's official accounts. But two transition officials privately expressed skepticism, pointing to other social media platforms' handling of the change in administration. Both Facebook Inc. and its subsidiary Instagram will duplicate the millions of followers currently following the Trump White House accounts to follow new Biden White House accounts. "They are advantaging President Trump's first days of the administration over ours," Rob Flaherty, the transition's digital director who will be director of digital strategy in the Biden White House, said of Twitter. "If we don't end the day with the 12 million followers that Donald Trump inherited from Barack Obama, then they have given us less than they gave Donald Trump, and that is a failure."
But Bloomberg reports Biden is still "clashing with the social media company over its decision to deny the incoming administration millions of existing White House followers." Biden's transition opened @PresElectBiden in order to start building a following for one of the official accounts the new president will inherit at noon on Jan. 20: @POTUS. In a change in practice from 2017, when President Donald Trump entered office, Twitter Inc. plans to reset both the @POTUS and @WhiteHouse official accounts to zero followers for Biden. The two accounts currently have a massive audience — nearly 60 million followers combined, though there is overlap.
Trump got a head start in 2017 when he inherited about 12 million followers of @POTUS from President Barack Obama's tenure, plus millions of followers from other official accounts. Though Trump used his personal account, @realDonaldTrump, as his primary social media mouthpiece throughout his presidency, Biden's aides think it's unfair Twitter isn't handing over followers along with the official accounts...
Twitter said it is too technically difficult to copy or roll over the millions of followers from the Trump White House accounts to Biden's official accounts. But two transition officials privately expressed skepticism, pointing to other social media platforms' handling of the change in administration. Both Facebook Inc. and its subsidiary Instagram will duplicate the millions of followers currently following the Trump White House accounts to follow new Biden White House accounts. "They are advantaging President Trump's first days of the administration over ours," Rob Flaherty, the transition's digital director who will be director of digital strategy in the Biden White House, said of Twitter. "If we don't end the day with the 12 million followers that Donald Trump inherited from Barack Obama, then they have given us less than they gave Donald Trump, and that is a failure."
Influencer? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, is he an influencer, or the President of the USA? Is this a race to see who has the most followers?
Note that I believe that the White House should have an official account for the President, which is not "reset" after changing the person, but complaining because they are not receiving sufficient followers and they are in disadvantage sounds so childish.
Re:Influencer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, is he an influencer, or the President of the USA? Is this a race to see who has the most followers?
Note that I believe that the White House should have an official account for the President, which is not "reset" after changing the person, but complaining because they are not receiving sufficient followers and they are in disadvantage sounds so childish.
Sorry, but no. Get ALL high-ranking government officials off social media.
They already have a platform. The President of the United States can command the airwaves anytime he (or she) wants, so don't give me this shit that they "need" a voice. Presidents have had no problem communicating with the entire nation and the rest of the world before Twitter came along. As for the rest, lawmakers have an entire channel dedicated to their televised presence (CSPAN).
Besides, after this clusterfuck of an election, political leaders may find politics as a whole, ranging from tiresome to toxic with the American people. We'll see how many citizens actually give a shit about politics after this circus dies down. Only reason they might is because they're forced to, staving to death on bailout bread crumbs.
Re: Influencer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather be able to see and hear exactly what is said. I don't need some pompous Reporter deciding what I'm allowed to see, or providing "context" or "commentary" which is usually slanted and often flat out inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
consider.
if joe biden has his own twitter account.
and the potus has a twitter account.
and team orange has been momentarily shut down
how will the conspiracy theory folks react to reading facts
Re: (Score:2)
how will the conspiracy theory folks react to reading facts
Remember the scene where Dorothy splashed the Wicked Witch of the West with water?
Re: Influencer? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the real reason Team Biden is arguing to start with tens of millions of followers is because they fear "Old Joe" won't attract even a million followers. Republicans followed Trump because they liked him, Democrats followed him to "keep an eye on him" - who will willingly add "Old Joe" to their twitter feed?
Personally, I would have liked to see Joe get all 60 million Trump followers, only to watch them leave him by 12:01 PM Wednesday.
Re: (Score:3)
What's this TV or Radio station which will always carry a complete, Live, unedited White House Press Conference?
CSPAN, and probably whitehouse.gov .
Re: Influencer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most 20-minute political speeches can easily be compressed down to 140 bytes of actual content.
So Twitter is a far more efficient medium for their messages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> The fact that US journalists aren't very good shouldn't be a reason to avoid journalism being the primary means by which we get government announcements etc.
I'm thinking about this and trying to guess at what you were thinking when you wrote it.
"Just because it's crappy doesn't mean we rely on it".
Maybe if I can understand "yeah it's crappy, let's depend on it more" I'll finally understand Windows fans. ;)
Ugh I should really use preview! (Score:2)
I should really read my posts before submitting them.
That should be:
"Just because it's crappy doesn't mean we shouldn't rely on it".
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is stopping Trump or Biden from hosting unedited videos on www.whitehouse.gov
Whither RSS? (Score:3)
Nothing is stopping Trump or Biden from hosting unedited videos on www.whitehouse.gov
You are technically correct.
What is stopping unedited videos posted to www.whitehouse.gov from being viewed, on the other hand, is lack of support for RSS, Atom, or h-feed in the reader applications that smartphone users are already using. Like it or not, most users have switched from RSS readers to social media silos. I'm guessing that part of this stems from the RSS model's lack of support for mobile platforms' push notifications.
Re: (Score:2)
What's this TV or Radio station which will always carry a complete, Live, unedited White House Press Conference?
The big four, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN always carry complete, live, unedited White House Press Conference coverage. They have always done so, even with the seditious traitor right up until a month or so ago where all would cut away when the lies and conspiracy theories and personal attacks came since that is not a press conference.
Oh, and btw, the Fox tabloid did the exact same thing [thehill.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That is the complete opposite of "always carry complete, live and unedited coverage."
Re: (Score:2)
I can see having a twitter account that retweets messages from the official presidential releases. However making twitter an "official" presidential release channel just seems like a lousy method for a president to address the country.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see having a twitter account that retweets messages from the official presidential releases. However making twitter an "official" presidential release channel just seems like a lousy method for a president to address the country.
Watch for Twitter to be classified as a public utility in 3..2..1
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, apparently we can't have a normal president that doesn't do Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, 4chan or Tiktok anymore. Like, you know, a president that does his job instead of posting on social media - or even more silly, having one of his aides post in his place.
Re:Influencer? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, apparently we can't have a normal president that doesn't do Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, 4chan or Tiktok anymore.
Look, gramps, the world has changed. Lots of kids these days use the twitters and snap-tok or tick-chat or whatever they call it.
Today a normal president does have a social media profile. The fact that most in the past didn't is simply because most of the past didn't have social media. Now, the average person has it, so normal presidents will. Normal changes. It has changed. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Blame FDR when he started using that newfangled radio thingimabob.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the founding fathers have it wrong. They shouldn't even be writing things down. They should be speaking directly to the people. No teleprompters, no megaphones, just a guy standing on a tall rock. It was good enough for Jesus.
It's a blow to fundraising for one thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Popularity contests and "influencing" is in a politician's wheelhouse.
Influencer? (Score:2)
Is this a race to see who has the most followers?
That is easy. The former lame-duck president has currently zero followers.
I was hoping for presidential, not petty (Score:2)
> Seriously, is he an influencer, or the President of the USA? Is this a race to see who has the most followers? ...
> complaining because they are not receiving sufficient followers and they are in disadvantage sounds so childish.
My hope was that Biden might bring a presidential tone back to the office, that perhaps he would be the opposite of "childish".
Biden should have let his fans complain about this on his behalf and remained above it himself. It would have been good if he at least gave t
Re: (Score:2)
"complaining.... sounds so childish"
You just described 90% of "serious" twitter users.
Waaa.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Get a grip and suck it up.
Full disclosure: I voted for Biden as a vote against Trump. I don't like either of them.
Re: Waaa.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uuum, this bullshis is why you guys effectively only have two parties.
Fuckin circular logic.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong but multi-party systems have edge cases where they can result in problems too.
In theory a 2 party system is supposed to push candidates towards the middle so that they need to have at least some support from both sides of the spectrum. Unfortunately when you've got a super close split, or as in the USA, a super close split that is effectively enforced by an antiquated electoral model (the Electoral College), and one or both of those sides is really dug in, then you get what we've got.
The t
Re: Waaa.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The first thing that the USA should do is eliminate the Electoral College. This would get rid of a raft of problems, which are due to the outsize influence that voters in the smaller and more rural states have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The right solution is to strip some power from the president. He's the president of the union, not the president of the people. That's why the people don't elect him. It works when he doesn't have much power to affect individuals, just the states. Under the Constitution, the federal government governs the states, and the states govern the people.
The idea that the urban voters of a handful of states should elect the president is repugnant to the federal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that the urban voters of a handful of states should elect the president is repugnant to the federal system.
Then we'll go with majority vote, like is done with every other elected office in the country. You're also missing one important point. When the Electoral College was created, the urban voters of a handful of states elected the president because that is where the concentration of people was located. More people lived in and around cities than were farmers and the like.
As to stripping power f
Re: (Score:2)
There's only two times the electoral college gave a different result from Popular Vote: Bush v Gore, and Trump v Clinton. The former was mostly by chance, and the latter was more like certain states having more weight compared to the votes supporting Clinton. In both cases, it was swing states making the decision, by converting their votes into one monolithic block, rather than the
Re: Waaa.... (Score:5, Informative)
Try again. [wikipedia.org]
Also, the existence of the Electoral College distorts campaign strategies. It forces campaigns to focus on the desires of the residents of a small number of states, instead of the desires of the population as a whole.
Re: Waaa.... (Score:4, Informative)
Eliminating the electoral college means that New York and California get to pick the president for the rest of the 48 states
Would you stop with this lie. You and all the other idiots who keep trotting out this lie assume everyone in those two states will vote as one unit when the reality is, for the most part, their votes will be split between the two parties. When you include all those other states which vote predominately Republican (Texas, Kansas, Iows, Montana, pretty much all those midwestern states) they nullify any Democratic votes from those two states.
Also, you'll note that in the current system, someone has to win three of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Florida to have a hope of winning.
Re: (Score:2)
The two party system in the US has the effect that both parties randomly take contrary stances on any issue they think they can "catch a voter" with, e.g. about abortion. And in the end you usually have a 30% or more people not voting for various reasons. There are nice youtube vidoes explaining why a 2 party system is the worst "democratic system" thinkable.
A few months ago one had linked one here, unfortunately I did not BM it ...
Re: (Score:2)
There are nice youtube vidoes explaining why a 2 party system is the worst "democratic system" thinkable.
Well, there's a worse one in which only one party is always in change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't like either of them either. But the enormous wave of raw hatred for Trump really shows, in my opinion, how much power the media has over us (including and especially people who insist that they are independent thinkers who are not beholden to the media, and believe that Trump is the spawn of Cthulhu based on objective information alone. And also the insurrectionists who thought that storming the whitehouse was justified, morally correct, and in accordance with direct orders from Trump).
Over the pa
Re: (Score:3)
Trump brought on hate from his own doings.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I consider Trump to be the President of Peace. He was an amazing president. I shudder to think of how many people Hillary Clinton would have killed had he been elected. I will miss him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I consider Trump to be the President of Peace.
He killed more civilians via drone strike than did Obama. In fact, the number of dead was growing so rapidly the con artist stopped the rule Obama put in place for transparency. In two years the con artist had 2,243 drone strikes [bbc.com] compared to Obama's 1,878 strikes in eight years.
So yeah, a really "peaceful" president.
The peace deals in the middle east (Score:2)
And the progress with North Korea. Both are worth about about the same.
Re: Waaa.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're referring to the President that just a year ago launched a cruise missile attack, killing a top Iranian general and bringing us to the brink of war for no apparent reason? And who doesn't know how to build a coalition to save his life? Wars aren't avoided by withdrawing some troops or singing some political theater "peace deal", they're avoided by making strong ties with other countries and building trade and connections such that going to war hurts them more than not going to war.
Re: (Score:2)
Suliemani was was only a "general" in a country that had armies of terrorists. Soldiers in the field face risks when they invade other countries, or had you forgotten that an IRANIAN general isn't supposed to be in IRAQ? Trump was right to have him whacked.
"Brink of war"? Don't make me laugh. Iran is a terrorist state because they KNOW that they can't win any other way.
Re: (Score:3)
You're referring to the President that just a year ago launched a cruise missile attack, killing a top Iranian general and bringing us to the brink of war for no apparent reason?
Did we go to war? No.
Are you arguing that the world would have been safer if Suliemani was still alive? WHat do you know about this particular Iranian General you think should have been protected from harm?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for all the personal insults. It sounds to me like your political position is extreme enough that it has robbed you of your objectivity. You see messages in what Trump said because it suits your narrative to see those messages. You are "reading in" to the speech messages that aren't there.
Of course, I don't think you are alone. The QAnon crazies and other right-wing extremists did the same thing. Obviously, they actually attempted an insurrection. So THEY certainly believe that they were told t
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. If you want followers, you have to prove you are a leader first.
The bar for leadership set by the current President is so low, I don't know how this could even be a problem.
At least Twitter is consistent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Extremist content is compelling - it keeps people on the platform, contributing.
Biden doesn't have nearly the 'extremist sex appeal' that Trump did - so I can see why Twitter would end up going out of its way to snub him.
This is also why I've never seen a valid reason to use Twitter - it's like all the worst aspects of bad newsgroup channels, with the added 'benefit' of regularly ruining businesses and careers.
It's like watching the old Jerry Springer show - I can see the satisfaction some garner from it, but it's not healthy - and it's really about the advertisements using short snips of humanity as content.
And it's not really a great place to find your 15 minutes of fame, is it?
Ryan Fenton
Re: At least Twitter is consistent. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a nice way to remind myself to be reasonable.
No slight against anonymity - but this is a place for more longform communication - and I find it appropriate to do this little contrary action.
Think of the appeal of posting online - the emotions it draws from people. The reasons people are drawn to the actions they do.
I write my name to remind myself of what I'd prefer to express before I post.
Ryan Fenton
Audience... (Score:3)
No one is entitled to an audience, even if you happen to be the President of the USA.
Re: Audience... (Score:2)
Uuum, I think if you don't have the citizens of the country as their audience, ... then I'm sorry, but you are not their president.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not what I said. The president can have the citizens as an audience but is not entitled to it. You do understand the difference I hope.
Re: (Score:3)
The @POTUS account was started by Obama under his official duties as president. It should be US government property and not something that Trump can dispose of as his own personal thing. In fact this should be prosecuted as a normal failure to hand over an account when leaving a job.
Re: (Score:2)
You're ire is misdirected. If you had bothered to read the OP you would know that it is Twitter that will reset the accounts when Biden is sworn in.
I've a hard time seeing that the @POTUS account is US government property, since that would mean they aren't bound by Twitters TOS. The implications are...interesting to use a modest word.
Re: (Score:3)
You're ire is misdirected. If you had bothered to read the OP you would know that it is Twitter that will reset the accounts when Biden is sworn in.
I've a hard time seeing that the @POTUS account is US government property, since that would mean they aren't bound by Twitters TOS. The implications are...interesting to use a modest word.
So, you have some truth with this, in that, yes, it will be Twitter taking the account away from DJT, deleting the contacts. However this is only happening because DJT is refusing to just give the account directly over to the Biden team as he should.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is entitled to an audience, even if you happen to be the President of the USA.
I mean I can't remember the previous president burning a phonebook of all media contacts on the way out the door.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, my following of @POTUS means I want to follow @POTUS. If I don't like the new POTUS, I can unfollow @POTUS. If I only cared about Trump, I would've followed @realDonaldTrump instead. Twitter shouldn't be deciding this for me.
Count your blessing (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this really a problem? I would have thought that it would be a blessing to start with a clean slate instead of all the old toxic baggage from the last administration.
Hopefully the Biden administration can move the country in a positive direction, but starting with a crap ton (or is it hellaton these days) of really bad tweets would seem to be a hindrance. In addition I really hope that media just stops talking about Trump 24/7. Like a spoiled toddler, that is all he cares about.
Re: (Score:2)
For all his faults (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Does Biden really want 74 million deplorables as followers? That - and worse - is after all what what the Dem party calls them.
The account was started by Obama and also has people who joined before Trump.
Clean slate is best (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, the people in the new administration think that Trump supporters are bad people. Why would they WANT to have them hang around?
It is likely that many of the 12 million that got pushed over to Trump from Obama didn't like that; they didn't sign up for him.
Why is it difficult now and not then? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would also express skepticism, it seems like Twitter should do what they did last time, and leave the existing followers of the POTUS account in place.
Why was it possible then but now now? Even the difference in numbers, ~17 million to over 60 million, doesn't seem like a vast difference in terms of ability to handle a transition.
Fear not, Joe (Score:3)
Surely you can afford this [likigram.com].
Change the Password (Score:2)
Fake follower counts (Score:3)
Sad... (Score:2, Flamebait)
That he feels the need to stoop as low as Trump.
We're still not completely out (I know, I know, ain't that obvious, It's way too early), as long as presidents still feel the need for "social media". Especially SoundbiteBlog aka Twitter.
If I was president, I't write a weekly blog, that actually goes in-depth, writren by me myself, so people could actuwlly.get to know me as a person and actual real human being, and not some figure(head). Openly announcing that it's gonna be with all the flaws, but also all t
Private company (Score:2)
Re: Private company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a private company and is free to keep Biden of the platform completely if they chose
So glad you agree Twitter had the right to yank the seditious traitor from their site, along with other white supremacists.
Complaining (Score:2)
Shouldn't be Tweeting (Score:2)
I see this is a failure of the Biden administration already. If we learned anything the last few years it is that public officials should not be tweeting at all. These off the cuff social media platforms are not appropriate for official representatives and statements.
Any statements from the President or indeed any high ranking official in government should be coming through the official press office, never directly except via carefully planned speeches or other official channels.
Words, words. (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFS:
That seems like an unnecessarily long way to say "We're too incompetent to manage basic IT."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I mean using a password reset form and sending confirmation emails to the new Whitehouse staff is an insurmountable task for such geniuses. On never mind they are lying.
So he said (Score:3)
Twitter said it is too technically difficult to copy or roll over the millions of followers from the Trump White House accounts to Biden's official accounts
This is a lie. -- note the period
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't understand. So much has changed in the 4 years since we did it trivally last time!
Biden isn't being childish here, a lot is at stake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Biden wants those followers because it is very difficult to pierce the bubble that Trump followers live in.
Biden wants those followers because it automatically gives a voice to the many millions off official media staff that follow them. Don't pretend for a moment that you think that followers of Trump on Twitter are actually followers of Trump in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of people in the world don't track everything they do in their professional lives. It's very hard to identify the absence of something, especially when said something is an account among likely hundreds of others which you *expect* to be quieter going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Biden isn't a charismatic figure
We'll just have to see what the inauguration day crowds look like compared to Trump, Obama and others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biden isn't a charismatic figure
We'll just have to see what the inauguration day crowds look like compared to Trump, Obama and others.
Biden doesn't have a raging inferiority complex like the con artist. In fact, Biden has already told people not to show up due to covid and for their own safety because of all the white supremacists who are planning acts against them and him. Like this guy [chicagotribune.com].
Obviously Biden's crowd size will be significantly smaller, and he's fine with that.
Whine Whine Whine (Score:2)
It's inconsistent (Score:2)
It's an OFFICE account; the people in the office change but the account remains the same; or did previously.
Trump whined and LIED about crowd size on day 1. It couldn't have been more stupid and dishonest. Other than his tone of voice, he's a whiny little bitch of a man-child. Trump himself said he whines a lot (I remember seeing the video.)
You seriously complaining about the Biden admin whining?
The Account is the Office, not the man. (Score:2)
Followers of POTUS should remain on the account. And any nerd worth their 1s and 0s skoffs at a claim that you cannot take the user list of POTUS followers and transition them to the new account. That's just silly.
The best evidence of this is that they did it already for the transition from Obama to Trump. Fair play and consistency says, do it again.
But mostly it's that if you follow the account of an office, you still follow when someone else has the office. That's common sense.
Roll over? Just hand over the keys and be done. (Score:3)
Just reset the passwords and give the passwords to the actual POTUS and the actual White House staff. If you've thought about this enough to decide its too complicated then you've over thought it.
Consistency (Score:2)
I don't really care much about Twitter, but there is the principle of consistency at stake.
What did Twitter do with the official White House accounts during that previous presidential transition?
How has Twitter handled the transition of accounts for other U.S. government agencies during leadership transitions?
How has Twitter handled transitions with other countries?
How has Twitter handled official organizational accounts when a new CEO or equivalent takes over?
Perhaps Twitter is avoiding the public specter (Score:2)
I'm betting Twitter doesn't want to have an account where lots of existing so-called hate-speech people will continue to populate an existing account with their rhetoric.
Or what I think might be the more realistic reason... the mass exodus OUT of the account by Trump supporters might further bolster the idea that people are leaving Twitter in droves.
And that's bad for stock prices.
Re: Interesting world we live in (Score:2)
Even worse: On Twitter!
Which literally bans intelligent thought. (Doesn't fit in 160 characters or whatever.)
Re: (Score:2)
That account has been suspended.
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is important because (most) people make it important. That's the nature of human communication, regardless of medium.