It's been a while since I've found myself disagreeing with something so strongly. I think that the absolute last thing we need is government-funded social medi

It's been a while since I've found myself disagreeing with something so strongly. I think that the absolute last thing we need is government-funded social media. If YouTube "spreads propaganda," what do you expect from a platform that a massive government has its hands directly on? I don't understand. It's as dystopian-sounding as any idea I have ever heard. > In other words, it should be built to prioritize sharing things you love over getting attention by simply being loud online. This is an over-trivialization of Twitter. At risk of sounding snarky: if you think Twitter is all about getting attention, you're using the app wrong, and maybe you only follow celebrities. Also, I think the question "Will people use it, and how many?" is the wrong question ask. Why will people use it? Can I get news updates? Can I find funny/entertaining content? Can I reasonably expect organic engagement, and potential virality? Can I get private life updates from my friends, without the government's eyes peering in? People don't typically go to PBS for most of these things (news is one thing they do), so I can't imagine how a "PBS" for social media would be very different. Yet another question: "Why would I be on a social media app with my parents?" I can understand the reasoning behind this, but I don't see it realistically gaining any traction or significant usage, ever. All this being said, Mr. Mark Coatney is a former director of Tumblr, so obviously there's a big gulf in social media experience between us, and I could be egregiously wrong on some of what I have said above. Who knows?