Your analogy to golf is completely missing the point. I don't need to play or even care about golf if the President does, but if he tweets something on twitter then the only way I can validate the source of truth is by using twitter. When these tweets can have major policy and economic impacts I think it's a whole lot more important than golf.
> What the president says on Twitter affects me or the world
But will be widely reported in every other media channel anyway, so you lose little or nothing by using Twitter directly. In fact, you might gain a little useful filtering, depending on your range of new outlet choices of course, and conversely there is a sort of reverse filter because you are less likely to miss things that are rather quickly deleted.
Despite what the minority thinks, anything which is a statement of government policy will be widely reported in news sources.
Twitter is not a requirement. I don't understand how anyone could possibly think it was, or be insulted by people saying it isn't. It seems like a cack-handed attempt at advertising to insist that everyone must use Twitter.
I don't use Twitter, and your reasoning is a complete non-sequitur.
I don't play golf, and the President plays lots of it. How is that possible? By... my not playing golf.