Dallas Morning News: Big Tech Has a Conservative Problem That Must be Addressed

The editorial board noted the firing of Palmer Luckey, a conservative on staff who founded the FB-acquired Oculus.

The Dallas Morning News’ editorial board has a message to Silicon Valley: you have a conservative problem that must be answered for!

In an article published on November 14th, 2018, the board notes the firing of 26-year-old Silicon Valley whiz kid, Palmer Luckey, who founded the virtual reality company Oculus which was acquired by Facebook. They explain:

 

Luckey is one of those — a 26-year-old homeschooled tech prodigy who built a virtual reality company that Facebook vacuumed up for $2 billion.

 

But the reason we might all remember Luckey has less to do with the VR tech he created than the politics he practices.

 

Luckey is a conservative, and conservatism is one part of a bigger problem American tech giants have with speech — both how they disseminate it and how they control it.

 

But conservatism might just be the part of tech’s problem that brings much-needed reform to the internet.

 

Luckey’s story goes like this: After selling his company, Oculus, he became a Facebook employee who did what many Americans do — he donated to a political cause he supported. The cause was a pro-Trump, anti-Clinton organization called Nimble America.

 

He was fired in 2017.

 

The op-ed notes that conservatives and center-right folks “have good reason to be suspicious about how all internet giants, but particularly Facebook and Twitter, control and monitor what is said on their platforms.”

 

They added that conservatives shouldn’t be the only ones concerned with these tech tactics. Concerns should extend to other constituencies:

 

Conservatives aren’t alone in being concerned, and they shouldn’t be. The way technology companies control speech is an appropriate area for congressional inquiry, and Cruz was right not to let it go at the hearings held in April where Zuckerberg swore, against transparent evidence to the contrary, that Facebook is not a publisher.

 

The editors finished the article by encouraging Congress to look into this. As long as they aren’t meddling in business affairs, Congress can examine the issues in big tech. Conservatives and libertarians should look into Lincoln Network’s recommendations for bringing more balance to big tech without regulatory means.

 

North Carolina Adds Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment to State Constitution

This was one of the surprising wins of the night, and is a win for conservation!

 

North Carolina just became the 22nd state to enshrine the right to hunt and fish (RTHF) in its state constitution. At 99% precincts reporting, the ballot measure passed 57.18% to 42.82%.

 

This amendment will limit the state’s ability to unscrupulously “regulate hunting and establish hunting as the “preferred” means of managing wildlife.”

 

Here’s the language of the ballot measure spelling out how hunting and fishing heritage will be protected:

 

This amendment would acknowledge the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, and to use traditional methods to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife. The amendment does not define “traditional methods.”

 

This right would be subject to laws passed by the Legislature and rules (i) to promote wildlife conservation and management and (ii) to preserve the future of hunting and fishing. If it passes, the amendment will not affect any laws regarding trespassing, property rights or eminent domain. The amendment does not address its effect on local laws concerning public safety or on commercial hunting and fishing.

 

The amendment would also establish that public hunting and fishing are a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

 

This ballot measure was heavily supported by National Rifle Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and National Shooting Sports Foundation. It also won support from North Carolina’s Wildlife Resources Commission.

 

It was heavily opposed by anti-hunting groups like the Humane Society. Governor Rory Cooper (D-NC) and North Carolina’s Democrat Party also voiced their opposition to it.

 

A lot of money poured into from anti-hunting interests to see this measure defeated—approximately $1.2 million:

 

As previously reported, Vermont was the first state to pass such an amendment in 1777. Since 1996, 20 more states adopted this amendment. Here’s what they entail:

 

Sportsmen in many states increasingly feel as if they are the ones outside the duck blind, and they are turning to state constitutions to ensure their hallowed pastime will continue in perpetuity. Increasing urbanization, decreased habitat, declining numbers of sportsmen, and more restrictions on hunting are common factors in the quest to assert the right to hunt and fish in a state’s most basic and difficult-to-amend document. On land that has been traditionally open to sportsmen, development of farmland and forests, along with pressure from other recreational groups such as hikers and off-road vehicles, is putting the pinch on the available land for harvesting game and fish…Opponents state that these provisions clutter a constitution and overstate the threat to these activities, while possibly limiting or increasing the amount and severity of restrictions that can be placed on sportsmen activities. The Humane Society states, “The constitution should guarantee fundamental democratic rights, not provide protection for a recreational pastime.

 

This is a win for conservation. I hope more states pass similar amendments to safeguard our hunting and fishing heritage.

If the GOP Wants to Survive in Virginia, Here’s What They Need To Do

I may be a transplant, but I care deeply for its future. Here are my recommendations for Republican survival here.

 

When I moved to Virginia from California in June 2012, I was optimistic about my adopted home’s political future.

 

I thought to myself, I finally have a reason to get excited about politics in a state. My home state was trending far-left and even my home district in Orange County, CA- one of the last vestiges of Reagan conservatism- has been lost, as of last night. Although CA-45, where I cast my first vote in 2009, was barely held on by Congresswoman Mimi Walters (R-CA), Southern Orange County is set to finally undergo a blue transformation. Gah.

 

Virginia naturally seemed like a great place to plant my political roots at the time. Now, I’m uncertain.

 

At the time of my relocation to the People’s Republic of Fairfax County, we had a Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, at the helms of the state in Richmond. Until he signed that $3 trillion transportation bill into law, he was doing a decent job at governing and advancing conservative policies. In 2012-2013, Republicans maintained control of the House of Delegates and had major gains in the State Senate.

 

Fast forward to 2018, and Republicans now only control four of 11 Congressional Districts — having lost Virginia’s 10th, Virginia’s 7th, and Virginia’s 2nd last night. Democrats control the governor’s mansion and top state positions. Republicans only hold control of both state legislative chambers by slim margins— 50-49 (House of Delegates) and 21-19 (State Senate). 2019 is slated to be a bad year for Republicans statewide.

Democrat Shift Was Predicted and Expected

 

How did Virginia get here? I may be a transplant, but I’ve done my best to engrain myself in state politics and learn the ropes. Obviously, the D.C. suburbs of Fairfax and Loudoun have increasingly trended Democrat given the influx of government employees who vote that way. The same seems to be happening in military-heavy Tidewater-Hampton Roads.

 

​The candidates fielded to challenge Democrats haven’t necessarily terrible, barring few exceptions, but they didn’t campaign effectively. Many of them were poor campaigners with a lack thereof strong message. Some of them weren’t prepared to face the Democrat political machine in 2013, 2014, and 2017.

 

Former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli could have won in 2013 – having only lost to now-former Governor Terry McAuliffe by 2-3% — but didn’t have the backing of the state party much and hired a terrible campaign consultant who muzzled him.

 

Ed Gillespie nearly beat Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) in 2014, contra to polling. He only lost by a 0.8% margin. However, he got crushed by now Governor Ralph Northam 53.9 to 45%, despite a Northam-affiliated group releasing a sleazy immigration ad against Gillespie. Gillespie also wasn’t campaigning as hard as we thought, and 2017 was a referendum on President Trump is a state that voted for Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, by an overwhelming amount.

 

Don’t even get me started on the 2018 U.S. Senate race. Had Nick Freitas been the nominee, he may not have beat Senator Kaine, but would have lost by a lower margin and his candidacy would have helped Dave Brat and Scott Taylor keep their seats in VA-07 and VA-02, respectively. I hope to god crazy Corey Stewart never runs here again. I will actively work to prevent that from happening if that’s the case.

Where Do Virginia Republicans Go From Here?

Some Republican activists and strategists in Virginia won’t like me for saying this but here I go:

  • Never ever run candidates like Corey Stewart again. He caused us to lose seats and voter enthusiasm. We’ll need more like Denver Riggleman, Nick Freitas, Rob Wittman, etc., to run statewide and nationally going forward to even be competitive.
  • Moderate Republicans and conservative-libertarian Republicans need to do a better job of working together. United we stand, divided we fall. Both a moderate and a conservative Republican congressman lost.
  • Get newer, younger leadership at Republican Party of Virginia. STAT. Since 2013, the party has lost statewide. There is evidence supporting a need for a shakeup.
  • Stop being stingy with money and hire more damn good branding, digital, grassroots, campaign people. This is a big complaint I heard from people who were vested in the races this election cycle. There are plenty of us ready to help you or refer people to your campaigns.
  • New candidate? Take a Leadership Institute training. It’s the best program possible for campaigns and future politicians. I’ll refer you to my old workplace if you inquire to me.
  • You’re going to need more creative disruption to be viable. Update your technology, techniques, and be innovative for polling, voter data, and more.
  • Build up better coalitions with natural allies here in Virginia: anglers, hunters, gun owners, school-choicers, business owners, and others. Heck, try to get crossover votes.​
  • Get on offense and run on ideas against extremist far Left candidates.
  • Be prepared to fight redistricting and other factors that could tilt elections against us.

Virginia Republicans: You need to get serious if you want to prevent our state’s forecasted morphing into California or New Jersey. We are at risk of losing the State Senate and State House next year given the trends playing out…

 

If we continue to lose, you will see a massive exodus of native and transplanted Virginians (like myself). I hear and see Florida is safe for now, so I may finally get lured into the Sunshine State after all.

 

It’s on us to reverse course. Will fellow Virginia Republicans be for the task?

Fired MI Journalist Who Trashed John James Offers Apology A Little Too Late

After her hot mic went viral, the now fired reporter Brenda Battel is sorry she was caught red-handed.

 

Polls have tighten in the U.S. Senate race in Michigan, which led one reporter to express her bias against Republican nominee John James.

 

“Hi, my name is Brenda Battel, I’m a reporter with the Huron Daily Tribune in Bad Axe, Michigan,” Battel said in the voicemail.

 

“I’m looking to set up an appointment with Mr. James for some time on Wednesday for a phone interview regarding the election results,” Battel continued. “I’m probably going to send an email over to the [email protected] with some details. Um, if you’d like to call me back, my number is … extension … Thank you.”

 

Battel attempts to hang up after giving her number, but the phone remains connected.

 

“Man, if he beats her… Jesus! F\***ing John James. That would suck! Whew I don’t think it’s going to happen though,” Battel continued.*

 

Brenda Battel, who was a reporter for Huron Daily Tribune , was fired after her personal thoughts on James came to light.

 

She called the Jones campaign on 3:40pm local time yesterday to get comment from the candidate. Believed to have hung up on the call, Battel was still recording her call and was caught saying something to the effect of “f***ing John James … that would suck.”

 

A recent poll found James only trailing incumbent Debbie Stabenow by just two points. It should be noted that it’s an outlier poll, but who knows? This could be the race to watch tonight.

Wealthiest U.S. Senator: I Don’t Believe Modern American Capitalism Is Working

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) is reportedly worth over $243 million. And he has the gall to lecture us if it’s working?

 

While stumping in Virginia’s Fifth District for Democrat candidate Leslie Cockburn — who tried to accuse her Republican challenger, Denver Riggleman, of endorsing Big Foot Erotica — Virginia’s senior U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) had a rather interesting statement for campaigners. Warner — who is reportedly worth $200 million — said in 2018 free enterprise isn’t working.

 

Ironic coming from the wealthiest U.S. Senator in America, no? As of 2014, he was worth $243 million.

 

In a video gathered by RNC Research, Warner says the following about the economy.

 

“I think we ought to realize that the economy that we grew up in isn’t going to take place in 2017, 2018, 2019,” Warned said.

 

“I was blessed to do really well in business,” he added. “I believe in the free enterprise but I don’t believe modern American capitalism is working for enough people.”

 

The full conversation can be watched here:

Warner previously served as Governor of Virginia from 2002-2006 and billed myself as a moderate Democrat—even hiring a bluegrass band to sing his praises:

Senator Warner is no moderate. He votes mostly with Senator Chuck Schumer at a 84% rate. If he was “moderate” as governor, he must have rid his extremist views very well.

If he continues to make hypocritical statements like this, I hope a Republican can challenge him again when he’s up for re-election in 2020. In 2014, Warner was almost defeated by longtime GOP consultant Ed Gillespie—winning only by 0.8% points.

 

Free enterprise is the most uplifting system ever devised. The only reason why it doesn’t work is when Democrats and Republicans pollute and ruin it with cronyism and subsidies.

 

Paging Nick Freitas and Republican Party of Virginia— please bookmark this.

Proposed NY Bill Would Make Gun Buyers Submit to Social Media, Internet Check

If passed with the current language being proposed, it would have some serious free speech concerns and not deter crime.

 

Two New York Democrat lawmakers are proposing a new bill that could prove to be potentially dangerous for prospective gun buyers in New York.

 

Although I had previously praised Brooklyn Borough President Eric L. Adams for encouraging other past and current NYPD officers to carry at places of worship in wake of the Pittsburgh shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue here at The Resurgent, I disagree with him and State Sen. Kevin Palme (D)’s proposal to examine a prospective gun buyer’s social media—especially if they are law-abiding and mentally fit.

This bill would permit law enforcement to do these two things for any person seeking to purchase firearms: 1) review three years of social media history and 2) one year of internet search history.

 

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and so it’s important for us to continue to review our laws as it relates to access to guns and other kinds of weapons,” Parker said.

 

“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a fire arm,” Adams said.

 

He added, “If the police department is reviewing a gang assault, a robbery, some type of shooting, they go and do a social media profile investigation.”

 

“Too many people who are emotionally disturbed are doing and showing their emotional instability on the social-media platforms,” Adams added. “Yet these platforms are not being used to properly scrutinize if an individual should purchase a firearm.”

 

New York gun owners or prospective gun owners should feel uneasy about this. There will be some serious issues that arise from this proposed bill—which remains unnamed as of this writing.

 

This bill would examine applicant’s accounts on the following social media outlets: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. Adams said it wouldn’t be far-fetched for this to occur, citing that the NYPD currently uses this tactic to investigate gang members.

 

What would this kind of social media and Internet search entail? Will it be equally applied to applicants? Will it be fair? Will it be respectful of rights? Will it actually deter crime from taking place, or just be another ineffective method installed to please gun control advocates?

 

If those overseeing this process are Democrat and anti-gun—which can be the case given its New York—more than likely they will selectively issue the okay and discriminate heavily against a prospective gun buyer if they are, let say, pro-Trump or pro-Republican—even if they are law-abiding and mentally fit.

 

Social media should already flag accounts that make threats or spew hate and cooperate with authorities if they are tipped off about a criminal. Twitter’s Terms & Conditions explicits states that threats and violence can get you suspended on the platform.

 

On Abusive Behavior: We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.

 

On Violence and Harm: Violence: You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening or promoting terrorism. You also may not affiliate with organizations that — whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.

 

Can law enforcement preemptively refer to social media to predict would-be criminal behavior? In many cases, yes. Recent mass shooters have tweeted or posted they are about to enact horror onto their victims—yet social media outlets like Twitter or Gab don’t alert them. Would the authorities be equipped to do this and respect prospective gun customers’ rights? That remains unclear.

 

HotAir’s Taylor Millard best-explained our worst fears about this proposal:

 

It would have been nice if the two had been forced to answer if this was an attack on rights not listed in the First Amendment (and, yes, they’re violating the First Amendment because it’s the government using someone’s speech to deny them rights). This proposal is also a violation of the Fourth Amendment because search engine results aren’t public domain. My guess is the bill, once it’s filed and should it become law, could be declared unconstitutional due to the Carpenter decision. If it’s not, then it proves Justice Neil Gorsuch’s point the majority didn’t go far enough in their ruling. It’s also a violation of the Second Amendment, but most here already know that.

 

If someone is criminally convicted of a crime, they are already barred from purchasing firearms and a shop owner will see that when they run a background check. If someone makes violent threats or exhibits bad behavior in-person or online, a gun shop owner notices it and kindly tells the customer they will be refusing them service (as they should).

 

I have a bad feeling about this, and you should too. It likely won’t deter criminal gun behavior…

Senator Heitkamp, Democrat Group Mislead Hunters on Licenses and Voting

With Kevin Cramer leading and expected to win #NDSen, his challenger and state Democrats are pulling this cheap shot.

 

Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) is the most vulnerable Democrat running for re-election in the U.S. Senate this cycle.

 

RealClearPolitics puts her race in the Likely Republican category and shows her opponent, Congressman Kevin Cramer (R-ND), leading an average of +11.4 points. The incumbent senator thinks she can recover after voting “No” against now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and a consistent record of voting in-line with Senator Chuck Schumer. Good luck with that.

 

Since national and state Democrats are desperate to hold onto her seat, they’ve resorted to the worst tactics to save face. In fact, they are targeting hunters in the state with misleading messages about losing out-of-state hunting privileges if they vote next Tuesday. Huh?

 

A Facebook page associated with North Dakota Democratic- Nonpartisan League Party, called Hunter Alert, posted this ad. Note: the page was created two days ago:

 

When you click through the ad link, it goes to this message:

The group, North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party, is responsible. This group is closely affiliated with the national Democrat Party of America, making it their North Dakota wing. When you click the social media icons, it takes you to their Facebook and Twitter pages:

 

Sec. 1 To Develop and enact public policy that is beneficial to the people of the State of North Dakota and the nation;

 

Sec. 2 To promote the election of candidates of integrity to hold public office who are dedicated to serve the people;

 

Sec. 3 To inform the citizens of matters of public concern so the people are able to make decisions on the basis of fact;

 

Sec. 4 To encourage the participation without discrimination of as many people as possible in the political process.

 

Senator Heitkamp was recently pressed on the ad.

 

“I’m sure a lot of the kind of transition that people have on voting — it means that you are a resident,” she said. “It means that you pay taxes here. It means that if you want a residential hunting license in Minnesota, you aren’t going to get that if you vote here.”

 

The interviewer asks her, “Is that even true? Could you lose your hunting license if you vote?”

 

Heitkamp responded, “If your hunting license is a residential license in another state, so that’s one area where you see differences in how, you know, we do not treat in-state hunting licenses the same way as out-of-state hunting licenses in North Dakota.”

 

There’s no iota of truth to this statement. You only lose the ability to hunt out-of-state if you’ve been criminally charged with crimes that bar you from hunting altogether, misdemeanors related to wildlife crimes, or don’t renew your non-resident hunting licenses. You don’t lose your right to hunt IF you vote—especially if you vote for Republicans.

 

Republicans promote right to hunt and fish (RTHF) amendments and are generally seen as the “pro-hunting” party—especially as national Democrats get substantial financial backing from radical environmentalist groups and bundlers who are wholly opposed to hunting.

Heitkamp and North Dakota Democrats are pulling tricks to cast stones at Congressman Cramer’s momentum and it’s not working. Hunters and other voters will see through these shady tactics. Congratulations are in order to the future U.S. Senator from North Dakota, Kevin Cramer.

Here’s How to Improve Twitter Without Deleting Likes and Retweets

There are many calls to get rid of Twitter likes and retweets in the name of “improving” user experience. It won’t help.

 

Depending on whom you talk to, Twitter users have differing views of the platform—both negative and positive.

 

Democrats and Republican users both agree that the platform sometimes resembles a dumpster fire. Our fellow conservatives will tell you they are persecuted on the platform more, and they aren’t wrong about many of its shady practices. Twitter rightfully rid the platform of some alt-right anti-Semites, but hasn’t applied this same deference and penalties to accounts in radical Islamist and Marxist circles who perpetrate the same bigoted rhetoric. Although there are some serious concerns for banning certain types of speech on Twitter, the company is private and can refer to its Terms and Conditions to restrict certain types of content. It’s understandable to remove accounts that violate rules for obvious reasons, like nutty Alex Jones, but labeling conservative speech as “offensive” in the vein of Jones is wrong-headed and dangerous. Twitter shouldn’t penalize one political persuasion and give another a pass, if they are found in violation of Twitter’s Terms and Conditions.

 

Also: Bruce Carroll, aka GayPatriot, shouldn’t have been banned either.

 

Some Democrats argue social media platforms are manipulated to favor and tilt elections towards Republicans, citing the 2016 elections. (Remember: Democrats led in digital efforts in 2008, but we are finally catching up to them.) Some have argued that Twitter shut down President Trump’s account, but even Twitter founder Jack Dorsey doesn’t believe that’s conducive. Some of Trump’s tweets are worthy of criticism, but banning the President of the United States simply because you disagree with his policies is stupid, at best. (Strangely enough, former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tweets are embraced, despite his lengthy track record of anti-Semitism and restricting social media during his reign.) Whether you like it or not, Trump is perhaps the most social media transparent president we’ve ever had, and consequently, Twitter has been given new life as a result of him tweeting. Nevertheless, we all agree that President Trump could tweet more judiciously.

 

Twitter has been debating ways to improve user experience. While other platforms like Facebook (up until recently) and Instagram have seen steady increases in users, Twitter has lagged behind. Recently, though, they’ve had some indicators of growth. Some argue ridding Twitter of “likes” and removing retweets will foster better discussions. I couldn’t disagree more with these recommendations.

 

Here’s what ridding “likes” would entail, because a like would trigger social media addiction? More below:

 

Founder Jack Dorsey last week admitted at a Twitter event that he was not a fan of the heart-shaped button and that it would be getting rid of it “soon”.

 

The feature was introduced in 2015 to replace “favourites”, a star-shaped button that allowed people to bookmark tweets to read later.

 

Similar buttons to “like” or show appreciation of people’s status updates, pictures and videos have become a central function of every popular social media service since Facebook introduced them.

 

But psychologists have suggested that they may be causing social media addiction…

Back in March, Twitter enabled “Bookmarks” – which privately save tweets for your liking. It’s helpful to me when I search for articles to incorporate in articles and my weekly newsletter.

 

 

With respect to the case for eliminating retweets, here’s one author’s reasoning in doing so:

 

Back in March, Twitter enabled “Bookmarks” – which privately save tweets for your liking. It’s helpful to me when I search for articles to incorporate in articles and my weekly newsletter.

 

With respect to the case for eliminating retweets, here’s one author’s reasoning in doing so:

 

The quest to accrue retweets regularly drives users to tweet outlandish comments, extremist opinions, fake news, or worse. Many users knowingly tweet false and damaging information and opinions in an effort to go viral via retweets. Entire Twitter accounts have been built on this strategy. If Twitter really wants to control the out-of-control rewards mechanisms it has created, the retweet button should be the first to go.

 

Retweets prey on users’ worst instincts. They delude Twitter users into thinking that they’re contributing to thoughtful discourse by endlessly amplifying other people’s points—the digital equivalent of shouting “Yeah, what they said!” in the midst of an argument. And because Twitter doesn’t allow for editing tweets, information that goes viral via retweets is also more likely to be false or exaggerated. According to MIT research published in the journal Science, Twitter users retweet fake news almost twice as much as real news. Some Twitter users, desperate for validation, endlessly retweet their own tweets, spamming followers with duplicate information.

 

If that is the case, what will Twitter become? An obtuse, boring message thread? Twitter came to be Twitter because of tweets, retweets, and other unique features. Who would this benefit—Democrats upset that conservatives and Republicans are using Twitter perhaps more effectively than they are? Yes, the click bait and punchy tweets from activists on both sides can be a bit much. Both sides tweet obscenities and vile threats—although Democrat-leaning accounts get away with it and are never ostracized like their Republican or conservative counterparts are.

 

How many times have certain mainstream outlets tweeted false news stories, with their retractions getting fewer retweets and likes than the factually incorrect ones?

 

Want to improve your user experience on Twitter? Here’s what I recommend instead of removing likes and retweets:

Tweet with a purpose and foster civil discourse

 

Eliminating likes and retweets will undermine Twitter’s very existence. It’ll become obsolete and worthless. Instead, Twitter should encourage — not mandate — us Twitter users to lead the charge of improving discourse on the platform. Why not start with tweeting with a purpose?

 

I recently had a Twitter conversation with a gentleman about managed bear hunts. He was genuinely curious about the implications of a federal judge in Montana’s ruling about grizzly bears. I explained to him, politely, of course, that a select population of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem aren’t endangered and that wildlife biologists want hunters to help cull this herd for the betterment of the species and ungulate species. He told me he was grateful for the information and said he’ll keep an open mind. These conversations are enjoyable and productive.

 

Alternatively, I don’t respond to tweets that resort to name-calling or gross mischaracterizations. There’s a mute button for that now. Phew!

 

When I first started out on Twitter in January 2010, I’ll admit: I tweeted some rather punchy tweets about every pressing issue of the day and responded to a lot of mean tweets. I used to encourage my followers to retweet (RT) some tweets if they were in agreement. I wanted to grow my following among conservatives and replicated the tactics of the day. As I matured over the years, I learned that this tactic accomplishes little. It may bring some quick followers short-term, but doesn’t make your account unique if everyone is doing it. Now I tweet more purposely, don’t feel compelled to respond to every issue that’s trending in the news, and guess what? I think my user experience is FAR more positive than when I first started out on the platform.

 

For those of us who are conservative, be selective with what you tweet. Be strategic in your Twitter posting strategy: Don’t always feel compelled to tweet about EVERY issue.

Post fewer click bait tweets, more informative content

 

I’ve grown to dislike clickbait tweets. It’s a cheap tactic to grow follower counts and get “ratio’d” in the hopes of going viral. This tactic allows users to manipulate and conflate their influence. A lot of conservatives, sadly, engage in this cheap tactic too—though Democrats aren’t angels in this regard, either.

 

Is there a news story that is facts-based that’s deserving of attention? Tweet an excerpt and an accompanying link for your followers to click on. Did a good guy or gal with a gun deter a bad guy or gal with a gun? Post those good news stories. Did your elected officials vote for bills or policies that are antithetical to freedom? Retweet or tweet content that’s constructive and action-oriented without name-calling and threatening people.

 

Post a call-to-action (CTA) and get people inspired to participate in voting, reading, or the exchange of ideas. You never know whom you can influence for the better!

Post positive tweets and retweet more feel-good stories

 

Want to improve your user experience on Twitter? Start with some self-assessment as to what kind of content you’re posting. Is the tone of your tweets always negative? Add some positive content into your Timeline.

 

Retweet feel-good stories. Post about a restaurant you visited and the good experience you had there. Brag about that fish you caught—make sure it’s legally caught and kept or handled, of course. Post about someone interesting you met—especially if you had a civil political discussion.

 

It starts with us – Twitter users – to promote positive content. Amidst the crummy things happening in society, there’s still a lot of good in this country. Contrast the bad with the good—which exists more readily out there than one would believe!

 

We have free will and can dictate what we do. Exercise that more often in your tweeting habits and you’ll feel better about your Twitter experience. Trust me!

What are your thoughts on some of these recommendations to “improve” Twitter? Would you want to see the ‘like’ and ‘retweet’ features done away with? Should they stay? Weight in and let me know!