The questions were good but the interest in a specific answer was non-existent. Pumping out a lot of ”mails” to get responses without any interest in WHAT was answered as long as there was an answer is definitely spam in my opinion.

I agree on many new users not having pic or bio from start BUT they don’t pump away 81 questions first thing they do on twitter. If someone you asked a question would click through to the account they would firstly note there being no bio/pic and secondly the ”spam” pumped away from the account = not a normal voter interested in what you have to respond.

I appreciate the articles from SvD about social media since it’s important to inform people about it, I only wish this one would keep a higher level which I am sure it would if it was research into a ”normal” field.

/josef

The questions asked to the MP:s can hardly be regarded as spam. It was individual questions to all 81 politicians, most questions were directly concerning things they had written in their own tweets.

Many twitter users, especially new ones, don’t have any photos or info of themselves. The general idea behind politicians being on Twitter, according to most social media experts, is to get in contact with voters they have not meet in person.

SvD has this year written many articles on social medias and it’s impact on politics. The aim is certainly not to downplay its importance, rather the opposite. Some other big papers are, yet, not writing much about the subject, and that is downplaying social medias.

Tobias Brandel