On Facebook, there is room for detailing, complaining, and engaging in side conversations, with the story being the core matter, as if the person writing on Facebook is implicitly asking for a social alliance regarding a specific issue. This is different from X, where the basis is a brief and firm stance, asking for alignment, comment, or quick intervention.
While Jordan is classified in the belt of countries that rely on Facebook for many citizens' debates and issues, X seems more present in the public sphere in some Gulf countries, for reasons related to lifestyle and its rhythm, and the nature of economic activity, although it is difficult to reduce this difference to a single factor. In Jordan, there is a large amount of time formed by unemployed people or those working with low productivity due to the nature of institutional work, which differs in some aspects from the Gulf countries where job localization is increasing to replace citizens in public and private sector jobs. Conversely, many residents avoid engaging in public dialogue in the countries that host them, and they remain engaged in the dialogue related to their original countries.
In Jordan, public debate on Facebook often shows that conditions are negative beyond what is sometimes realistic and actual, but tracking content producers and sustained followers leads to the estimate that those actually engaged with public affairs on Facebook are only a limited percentage, while most Jordanians live outside this public discussion, and their trends and opinions cannot be identified through this platform, because their use of the site is for the social purpose for which it was established, which is to keep the individual in contact with their social circle, not necessarily to be used as a platform for political opinion or action.
The intensity of presence in public debate on social media does not mean that the issue present and described as a trend is the main concern of the entire society, nor does the absence of a person from virtual debate mean that they do not have a personal opinion that can, at a certain moment, form part of the prevailing opinion among most Jordanians. It is difficult to consider those who initiate engagement on social media as a representative sample of all Jordanians, just because they are the most visible and the most capable of keeping the issue present in the virtual sphere.
Platforms are not passive actors because algorithms intervene in the prevalence of certain voices and focus on the content they provide, responding to what may be attractive regardless of how it approaches the truth in a responsible manner, and complaints and even anger over matters that achieve interaction considered by the site as part of its capital.
The important question about recognizing the true pulse of Jordanians in many pressing and complex issues arises without those engaged on social media determining the image that suits them, or does their intense presence turn into a feeling of the generality of this image among Jordanians? And how can official officials and ordinary followers distinguish between what occupies the virtual sphere and what actually forms public opinion in society?
