> This is a conscious decision on their part from their learnings about abuse - it isn't accidental. I also think it serves a very different purpose. You're s

> This is a conscious decision on their part from their learnings about abuse - it isn't accidental. I also think it serves a very different purpose. You're seeing them as something that could be the same in order to lower abuse, but I don't think that's true. Some of the things you say are bad about Twitter are actually things which make it a great public discussion tool. They're different tools - they cater to different parts of the market. If you want to have a public discussion about something, because of Twitter's decisions here, you take it to Twitter, not Facebook. All of these decisions are things that make Facebook a better tool for interacting with people who you know and Twitter a better tool for interacting with people that you don't. They're completely different markets and both serve a purpose. > That said, I think it's also an error state that these services attract a "different crowd". Human behavior is incredibly circumstance based - people will behave as the system encourages or discourages. I'm willing to bet that nearly everyone on Twitter is also on Facebook, but they act very differently on the two services. It's too simplistic to model abusive bad actors as inherently prone to abuse. This is somewhat true, but I don't think that without Twitter there would be no popular public discussion-oriented service. I think it's a niche that needs to be filled. Despite the fact that that niche sometimes breeds hostility. I feel fairly confident saying that Twitter wouldn't exist anymore if they tried to clone Facebook's protected and personal-style rather than paving their own more public style. Things like filtering who can see your messages and who can enter a discussion are just not things people want in a service which is oriented towards the public. You'll take those things to Facebook instead and they know that. The abuse and hostility risk is simply an inherent part of being a very public-oriented service, the odds of an actual problem arising for any individual user are infinitesimally small. It's something people are willing to risk and get involved in sometimes. There may be some minor tweaks, but nothing that would inherently changed the way the platform is used as you're suggesting would allow them to continue their existence or to effectively serve the niche they're in currently.