"Nonprofits", especially when they have associated revenue streams beyond pure donations (eg government contracts), have really odd organizational incentives.

"Nonprofits", especially when they have associated revenue streams beyond pure donations (eg government contracts), have really odd organizational incentives. In the context of something like Twitter where selective censorship / megaphone promotion is becoming a core part of their operations, it looks like reorganizing as a nonprofit is just a tax-advantaged way for the board to act how they want without being even theoretically obliged to operate for the benefit of the people that supplied them with the capital to build up their service. They've been extremely aggressive in purging high-value users on extremely flimsy pretences in what cannot possibly be a revenue-optimal way (unless somehow you think celebrities fighting amongst themselves is bad for user engagement), but if they have a purported goal of something vague like "improving communication" that becomes a non-issue.