PERHAPS dwarfed by the re-election of Nicola Sturgeon as first minister was the news last week that MSPs will now be able to use social media in the chamber during debates, after the ban on it was lifted.

Not that I'm for a minute suggesting that politics is often frustratingly behind the times when it comes to technology, but it's about time.

There's just no denying how compatible politics and social media have become. From the old days, before the internet, I have fond memories of watching Question Time with my mother as a kid, and with my neighbour when I got a bit older. It's one of those programmes that requires a companion to vent alongside or the TV is at some risk from flying living room ornaments. But now, Question Time just isn't worth watching unless you're tuning in with thousands of people on Twitter, all providing their own commentary in real time.

Politics programmes, election nights, parliamentary debates – all are at their prime when you have social media channels at your disposal. That's the new lie of the land, and it's good to see MSPs have widening access to that forum throughout their work.

There has been some concern, however, that it could compromise debates if MSPs are able to tune in to the chat on Twitter. Rather than providing a commentary alongside Holyrood goings-on, tweeters will now be able to target their comments directly at those in the chamber in the hope that they'll be checking their smartphones.

This potentially opens the door to the pressure of mob mentality which, admittedly, can be overwhelming on social media. More worryingly, it could also open the door to lobbyists with commercial or business interests attempting to influence the direction or votes of MSPs.

But would it be so terrible if lobbyists all started piling onto social networks trying to grab MSPs' attention? The lobbying landscape is generally one of some secrecy: the public is often completely unaware of that world and how corporate influences attempt to gain favour with politicians.

Personally I'd love to see them broadcast it all over Twitter – bring on the transparency, let's see who's trying to curry favour with who and what they're hoping to get out of it. We'd finally have some insight, visible to everyone, of how much pressure lobbyists and PR executives, with wads of money supporting their campaigns, put on parliamentarians to get results. And that's exactly why I'm sceptical as to how much of a problem this would become as a result of lifting the social media ban – powerful people aren't all that keen on putting their business out there for everyone to see.

More of a concern would be the mob mentality element of social media. Unfortunately, often the loudest and most committed tweeters are the most unpleasant. They range from rude to aggressive and relentless. I’ve no doubt that MSPs will be targeted by those types, and even though they make up a minority they still feel like a crowd fit to fill a football stadium. But politicians are already targeted if they're on social media. It's hard to see how lifting the ban in Parliament would drastically change anything.

Overall, opening the channels through which politicians can communicate with the public is a positive step. The existence of eccentric characters on Twitter or business interests trying to gain influence is not a strong enough reason to oppose it. If that were the case we'd be best cancelling public meetings, too, because having grown up in a small town, I've seen my share of it "in real life".

Social media is a community, and it’s not all that unlike our own communities. It has the lurkers: people who just watch what's going on but never get involved; the intellectuals and the reasonables: people who'll offer the best, most balanced analysis and who love nothing more than a six-hour disagreement where they only just manage to hold their tempers and have the satisfaction at the end of it of agreeing to disagree without a cross word said and a head held high. There are the aggravators: people who see danger and conspiracy in everything and would rather tear something apart before it begins in order to prove their point, while always failing to see the irony. And there are the influencers: the people with status who don't have to say very much for it to make a headline somewhere.

The difference on social media is that it all feels massively amplified. Imagine being stuck in a public meeting for a week with politicians, journalists, lurkers, intellectuals, aggravators and influencers.

At least on social media we have the "mute" button. Social Media 1 – 0 Real Life.