> 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 ass

> 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?