That was one of the best comments I’ve gotten on this platform. Thank you. And glad you liked the article.

I think you’re right that Twitter (and other social media platforms) present themselves, and are thought of, as more representative than they actually are. People often assume their circles are more representative than they really are too — think of arguments along the lines of “I don’t know anyone who thinks X”—but it’s fair to say most people know that, say, churches represent Christians (or more specifically their denomination) and many people are not Catholic, Evangelical, etc. So I like your point that “Twitter is not real life” acts as a counter to the perception that it’s closer to representative than it actually is.

That being said, given the influence of the platform — in large part via the people on it — Twitter is probably more representative of the public than churches, offices, etc., though not perfectly representative, of course. And because many less informed, less engaged voters pick a party (for a variety of reasons, some related to identity) and then adapt the party’s positions, rather than start with well-formed positions and then pick the party closest to them, political Twitter may provide a window into future public opinion, even if it’s not all that representative of where public opinion is currently.