Twitter is not and has never been an officially sanctioned government press release channel. The consequences to government and policy would be trivial to none. Since most of the tweets from Trump are void of fact/research or are bizarre conspiracy theories I suspect a troll taking over the account would go largely unnoticed.
In a more practical context I was in CENTCOM supporting troops in Syria when news of complete withdraw stunned the world via Twitter. The military did not act on a tweet. No formal change in policy in the government occurs via tweet.
In a more clear example remember back when Trump ordered, via tweet, the military will ban all transgender persons from military service? The military ignored that tweet without repercussion.
The court confirmed that the Twitter account was used for official communications with the public (and therefore couldn't be arbitrarily restricted).
Does the military act on press releases? I would think both have importance based on how everyone else reacts to them, not because they serve as internal communication channels for the government.
A tweet is not a press release and neither of those are lawful orders. Congressmen, for example, have numerous options for communicating officially with their constituents. That communication is not an indication of lawful actions or policy though.
Its like comparing the correspondence of a legal action from the government to a campaign rally. Just because many people in the public cannot tell the difference does not make them equivalent.
What's the difference between a press release and a tweet? Letterhead? A press release is just an email. What if a press release is published by tweet?
This sounds like an equivocation fallacy. Official letterhead can have legal ramifications that a tweet cannot. A more absurd example is: What's the difference between a tweet and a medical prescription? Letterhead?
The Secretary of the Navy tried to ignore an order-by-tweet last week and he's been fired.
People who don't act on Trump's tweets can do so, but when he follows up by firing people who don't, that's something of a signal that they're meant to be taken as orders.
That's not what happened. The Navy secretary was not fired by Trump or anything related to Twitter. He was fired by the Secretary of Defense after violating a verbal order and making contradictory public statements.
Trump tweeted that Esper fired Spencer but Esper very likely didn't actually have the authority to do so. Probably Esper asked Spencer to resign.
Point is, when you have 1) a tweet about an issue, 2) an official who says "that's not an order, we are going to wait until there's an order" followed by 3) that official being fired, it sure looks like the tweet was meant to be taken as an order.
Esper fired Spenser. Esper told Spenser to write a resignation letter on Sunday and deliver it to Trump the same day. This happened before Trump tweeting anything related. Trump became aware of the termination as a result of the resignation letter and tweeted as a result.
Twitter is not and has never been an officially sanctioned government press release channel. The consequences to government and policy would be trivial to none. Since most of the tweets from Trump are void of fact/research or are bizarre conspiracy theories I suspect a troll taking over the account would go largely unnoticed.