The etiquette and decorum for communicating with individuals or business entities via social media channels, is only somewhat similar to in-person and on-ground interactions. The difference between the two, is perhaps, the more important thing worth observing and taking note of.
From my perspective, here is the most significant difference that social media channels such as Twitter (now known as X) allow for, when it comes to human-human interactions.
-
Online, publicly accessible social media channels produce and facilitate, practically the most communistic, democratic, capitalistic, and socialistic forms of human activities, all at the very same time.
-
It is communism-like because all persons have roughly the same basic tools to start with, when online users want to read or post a message on a public, social media channel. However, it is much more like the subversive and Leninist version of communism, in how some central authority figures posing as a "vanguard party", have much stronger set of algorithmic tools to control the flow of information, within the overall social media platform, just like the Bolsheviks did during the early 1920s.
-
Simultaneously, it is also democratic, in the sense that any individual can contribute their sentiment, or have their say, within a clique's or a tribe's overall outlook, through the social media platform. The fact that different ideas dynamically mix and somewhat "organically" generate the perceived outlook of an online community's eventual behaviors and shared values, is the "democratic" aspect of social media channels.
-
Corporate entities of course, behave like natural persons in social media platforms, because they are allowed to do so by the capitalistic owners and developers of the platform. A corporate entity typically has a team of human beings who manage their company's messaging and brand following on any given social media outlet. In this regard, they have a fiduciary duty to make sure that their messaging is authentic, and that it carries with it, the intended set of cultural values as desired by the company's stakeholders. Unfortunately that is easier said then done, but undoubtedly, social media platforms are capitalistic, particularly because they happen to monetize every feature and aspect of the platform that can be monetized, for the private profit and pleasure of the platform's corporate board members and managers.
-
It can then be seen that from the capitalistic roots of social media platforms, the socialist aspects of collectivized and cooperative ownership of digital content arises, among formal as well as ad-hoc online groups and enterprises. The content posted to a platform such as Facebook or X, becomes "conditionally" owned by those companies, specially for the commercial intents and purposes of copying as well as physically transferring the copies of posted content, via Content Delivery Networks (CDN). The very same thing can also be done by other people in online communities, who simply aren't employees or hired contractors of those platforms. Especially, government agencies and other private corporations that own or operate, internet exchange points, can sift through as well as copy, and even modify or block, the content being posted to social media services, long before those posts ever reach the social media platform's servers. Government and internet service providers can do so, for legitimate reasons pertaining to national security, and for efficiently managing the traffic of data packets being sent through their physical infrastructure.
-
For all of the above reasons, a large number of copies of the data posted on each social media platform, do exist, throughout the world. As such, it is insurmountably difficult for government and private agencies to delete, every, soft and hard copy of the content that could have been curated by entirely disconnected and disjointed groups of people residing in different continents of the globe, who could have produced those copies for mutually exclusive, and thoroughly unrelated motivations.
The fact that, mere tweets or status updates on a social media platform can potentially become an indelible record of any entity's online expressions, raises quite a few challenges for government as well as non-government based organizations, specifically when those online posts have genuine legal ramifications and consequences, regardless of them being "offensive" or "inoffensive" to the cultural worldviews of various onlookers.
So, whenever an entity wants public attention diverted away from a particular online post on a social media platform, the most economic strategy used by them has been to wait and do nothing, so as to allow the deluge of other posts to bury that particular content, somewhere far away from the eyesight and minds of prospective onlookers.
For sure, there is no practical way to keep an online post fresh, and to maintain its relevance to consumers' interests while making it constantly resurface within the feed of their social media platform, without spending vast amounts of cash and human resources for repeatedly elevating the visibility, of a message with its "call to action."
The reality is that many innocent consumers don't even consider the truthfulness and authenticity of a message that shows up in their online feed (or wall, or reel), simply because they are only concerned with how it makes them feel, during the momentary instance of reading or viewing the available content. However, teams of security analysts employed within intelligence bureaus of government agencies and departments, aren't merely looking for what a message directly sent to them, 'feels like.' This is because their ultimate job is to extract "actionable intelligence" from a communication.
All of these seemingly lengthy and laborious to read articles have only one purpose. It is to allow the concerned bureaus and departments of each-and-every organization that collects such content, to arrive at their own conclusions about the seriousness, authenticity, relevance, and veracity of the presented evidence, which showcases how a range of targeted violations and abuses have been ongoing against peoples of color and specifically Muslims, via the willful involvement of North American institutes in committing those insidious, and discriminatory violations.
While many state-sponsored organizations have large amounts of resources dedicated to dive into such 'suspicious' materials, and to even use 'every means necessary' to find out who, and what, a person like me is; they are likely to be compelled by their own methods of arriving at judgments, to put aside their subjective views about what my qualifications are, who I am affiliated with, which groups I support or favor, and what my personal beliefs or lifestyle choices involve; to then, specifically focus on the verifiable and substantiated claims of the content provided via the following link:
What you do thereafter, is certainly your choice, isn't it?