Everything said publically over social media can be taken as evidence of a political leaning one way or the other. Mechanized political profiling is constantly operating through algorithms that score people and officials looking for opponents. Language and use of words is monitored through trivial interpretations, subject to mistakes, yet it can still be incriminatory.
Meanwhile, real-time manipulation of people’s opinion is sold off through constructed trends like promoted tweets or multimillion dollar promoted hashtags, a sophisticated and devious utilization of language and public debate. In addition to these new propaganda techniques, censorship over social media is sold off to authorities as well. For instance, Twitter now unveils details of dissidents and censors messages on a country-by-country basis, following the instructions of the local despot. This results in real political persecution, especially in those countries where Twitter collaborates with oppressive authorities.
Centralization of the digital information flow expands surveillance capacity. These are the consequences that everyone has to face when social media platforms sell out their users and hand over their data to the authorities, since social communication data isn’t independent but embedded within privately owned environments. Private social media platforms expose personal data rather than protect it, in order to generate more traffic and users so that the platform itself grows in value. But the larger the platform, the greater the political risk to each user and therefore, to politics itself.
Social media platforms should be constantly under public scrutiny to maintain independent, protected and fair communications. Media as tools that help to build social relations and enhance general knowledge shouldn’t be left in private hands for commercial and political exploitation. Rather, it should be in the public domain and kept autonomous for the sake of all humanity.
Social media platforms are proud to claim that they allow social relations to grow, but they can destroy just as many, or ghettoize people in the same self-referential networks they were already in. It’s too easy to mute people with different taste, and so dialogue never happens across the “filter bubble” . This isolation increases political polarity.
Without interaction with others, no pacification or constructive debate can ever take place. Political fractions become fully isolated groups unable to communicate to anyone outside themselves. Politics becomes even more polarized as a result of miscommunication and isolation in a multiplication of micro-communities. And the isolation facilitates social sorting and subsequent manipulation of the micro-targets thereby generated.
In social media people mirror the flowing void of present political discourse. They reproduce the rhetorical language of their political masters in a sort of auto-demagogy. Lately, internalized political rhetoric has been driving political subjectivization, and users influence themselves in a self-defensive manner, forgetting the discursive aspect of negotiation between opinions that makes up politics.
Encounters with “the Other” happen only through conflict, because of restricted social connections dictated by the platform itself and a general low quality of communication mediated by these digital platforms. We don’t confront others anymore, so we aren’t able to understand other opinions or ourselves in relation to them.
Social media are often being used to be hateful, and Twitter in particular can be easily used to publically defame people, since there are no protections against direct harassment. Hostility is frequently generated as well because of misunderstandings and generalizations that easily happen when the medium restrains communication, in this case restricting each utterance to 140 characters.
The limits and potentials of social interactions on social media are all about the design of the interface and the social algorithm applied to them. For this reason democratizing the design of the instruments can be beneficial for everyone, rather than leaving ownership of the infrastructure in private hands that can plan social control by constraining access to and use of information.
 Twitter able to censor tweets in individual countries
 Eli Pariser "The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think"
The 2012 was the first year in which both political parties heavily used media such as Twitter to conduct their campaigns, and filled databases of people by aggregating large amounts of personal information. The “Hashtag Election” of 2012 represents a new brand of hyperconnected electioneering, or the major use of Twitter to generate polls or statistics which influence political strategy. Voters were targeted to vote for a particular party in a form of direct manipulative language, bordering on intimidation.
They were further encouraged to participate by expressing their political opinion on social media, while political leaders attempted to target them with their message, engage with key demographics, and stumble on a genuine political “moment” on the same platforms, fueled by the same networks.
Some numbers about the 2012 presidential election on Twitter:
- During the conventions, Twitter users generated 14,289 tweets per minute in the wake of Republican nominee Mitt Romney's speech. When Michelle Obama finished speaking at the Democratic convention, the tweets were flying at a rate of 28,000 per minute. After President Obama's speech, Twitter reported a 52,757 tweet-per-minute pace.
- The first Presidential TV Debate generated 11.2M related tweets, the second generated 12.2M and the third debate 7.8M.
- During the vice presidential debate, women drove the social conversation by generating 55 percent of the tweets. There were 72,000 tweets (32 percent of the overall Twitter volume) about the economy. Next came Medicare and entitlements, at 45,000 tweets (20 percent), and Afghanistan, at 25,000 (11 percent).
- The Obama Administration purchased Twitter terms trending during the debate, including Jack Kennedy, Malarkey, Afghanistan in 2014 and VPDebate.
- The Republican National Committee, and the Republican-leaning super PAC Americans for Prosperity shelled out an estimated $120,000 each for a Promoted Trend - a phrase or slogan like RomneyRyan2012, FailingAgenda and 16TrillionFail.
- In 2010, The Washington Post purchased the hashtag #election
- In 2012 the presidential campaign set the record for highest spending ever, with a total of $2 billion.