Agreed, the article you linked is quite a well-laid out read and as the originator I'm glad to have seen it first in that context.
Back to the subject at hand, seeing the drastic difference in tone only goes to support a hypothesis that Trump himself is constantly at odds with his staff et al. If not in actual statements, at least the sentiment of the statements. Refusing to buy into, well, softer diction would be another false claim, it might seem.
We need some followup analysis. Now that you can reliably filter out staff tweets, we need to re-examine whether Donald Trump is the most prolific shitposter in the history of the internet.
Seriously, though, a twitter bot for each candidate that retweeted only things that we think came directly from them and not from staff would be very interesting. I don't follow either candidate on Twitter since I tend not to believe one liners from candidates, but it'd be interesting to follow their tone. Does Hillary Clinton do any of her own social media, or is that 100% staff?
I'm having a science-fiction-in-real-life moment here where I’m imagining a person’s public persona being managed, with or without their consent, by an AI designed to determine whether their public posts/comments are authentic or not. We live in weird times and they’re getting weirder.
The first link discusses the changes in Ronald Reagan's speech, especially unscripted press conferences over a number of years. They compared the number of unique words used, number of repetitive words used etc.
I don't think you could do the same analysis on Trump's tweets because people can take more time to compose their tweets, choosing apt words for the context. Plus tweets are much shorter, so you'd have a smaller corpus with fewer unique words to begin with.
Still, definitely an interesting idea that you had there.
I have been waiting for someone to do this analysis; I had been thinking for a while that there was something more "boring" about his iPhone tweets. Thanks!
