4 ms·

Yes, for two reasons. First, a political motive could not have created Twitter. If twitter was created as a tool to influence politics, it would drastically ch

Yes, for two reasons. First, a political motive could not have created Twitter. If twitter was created as a tool to influence politics, it would drastically changed who signed up for the platform, and it's influence and reach. There are plenty of platforms that have tried that route, and not a single one has been successful. Reddit is in a similar position as Twitter on this same issue, and take a look at Voat to see what that looks like. Therefore, Singer seeks to obtain influence he would not have had by co-opting a platform created for other purposes. Second, Twitters political leanings are incidental. Twitter's employees are human beings, and when they make a decision, they are biased by their own thoughts and opinions, which happen to generally be on the left. While leftist, this still allows people like Trump and other conservatives to use the platform... and it limits what political actions they can take (they cant get too extreme or their diverse user base may revolt). In other words, this is a passive bias. Whereas Singer (may--we don't really know his motives) seek to turn Twitter into a political weapon that he can use to battle liberalism. That's an active bias. And depending on how active he wants to get with politics using Twitter, it may destroy the platform. A passive bias is very different than an active bias. And I don't know how you can claim they are indistinguishable.

luckylion 7y ago
> If twitter was created as a tool to influence politics, it would drastically changed who signed up for the platform, and it's influence and reach. That's assuming you have to start with what you want to eventually achieve. Startups don't work like that in business, why should they in politics? You invest money to buy growth and market share before you monetize. I'm not suggesting that Twitter was created to be a political tool, but "political apps don't work, Twitter worked, therefore Twitter wasn't meant to be a political app" falls a bit short I think. > While leftist, this still allows people like Trump and other conservatives to use the platform... Isn't that mostly because they really don't want to open that can of worms by banning the US president? Do you believe that, if Trump had lost to Clinton in 2016 but just kept on playing the politics game instead of tweeting about how great his new show will be, they would've tolerated that? I seriously doubt that. > Whereas Singer (may--we don't really know his motives) seek to turn Twitter into a political weapon that he can use to battle liberalism. Burning it to the ground, wasting his money, because of his personal politics? Doesn't that sound a bit strange for a hedge fund?
- rgbrenner 7y ago
  Hillary doesn’t run twitter. Trump used twitter for 8 years to attack and spread conspiracy theories about Obama. I would say the character of his tweets are unchanged since he became president. So I see no reason to believe he would have been banned on year 9 of his behavior. Besides there are plenty of other conservatives on twitter. Then and now.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > Hillary doesn’t run twitter. That's not the point. It wouldn't be Hillary making Twitter ban Trump, it would be Twitter not having to ban the president. Trump's tweets may not have changed (I'd say they did; his reach and the importance certainly has), but Twitters policies have evolved and what was okay 5 years ago isn't okay today.

luckylion 7y ago

> If twitter was created as a tool to influence politics, it would drastically changed who signed up for the platform, and it's influence and reach. That's assuming you have to start with what you want to eventually achieve. Startups don't work like that in business, why should they in politics? You invest money to buy growth and market share before you monetize. I'm not suggesting that Twitter was created to be a political tool, but "political apps don't work, Twitter worked, therefore Twitter wasn't meant to be a political app" falls a bit short I think. > While leftist, this still allows people like Trump and other conservatives to use the platform... Isn't that mostly because they really don't want to open that can of worms by banning the US president? Do you believe that, if Trump had lost to Clinton in 2016 but just kept on playing the politics game instead of tweeting about how great his new show will be, they would've tolerated that? I seriously doubt that. > Whereas Singer (may--we don't really know his motives) seek to turn Twitter into a political weapon that he can use to battle liberalism. Burning it to the ground, wasting his money, because of his personal politics? Doesn't that sound a bit strange for a hedge fund?

rgbrenner 7y ago
Hillary doesn’t run twitter. Trump used twitter for 8 years to attack and spread conspiracy theories about Obama. I would say the character of his tweets are unchanged since he became president. So I see no reason to believe he would have been banned on year 9 of his behavior. Besides there are plenty of other conservatives on twitter. Then and now.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > Hillary doesn’t run twitter. That's not the point. It wouldn't be Hillary making Twitter ban Trump, it would be Twitter not having to ban the president. Trump's tweets may not have changed (I'd say they did; his reach and the importance certainly has), but Twitters policies have evolved and what was okay 5 years ago isn't okay today.