4 ms·

But if they have been and are doing what is already considered a "bad idea" and the market is totally free with no significant barrier to entry, why haven't the

• roenxi 5y ago
  Because they've historically been doing a pretty good job? Because most Twitter users really like Twitter's moderation? Competitors are already growing at breakneck pace and we just haven't seen it come through into conventional wisdom? How am I meant to know I'm not an oracle. But displaying tweets is literally the easiest thing that is done on the modern web after displaying a small static site. There is absolutely no libertarian argument that everyone deserves to have their tweet put up with a "Twitter" logo next to it. There is no need at all for regulation here. You can argue that forcing Twitter to host tweets is a good idea, but that is going to be damn tricky to square with libertarianism. If this market is an example of high barriers to entry then there is no such thing as low barriers to entry. I could probably put up a mastodon instance over a weekend, all the technical work has already been done.
  • throwawaylinux 5y ago
    So you don't know why it might be, except that you are very certain it is not because of any barrier to entry in the market and you insist there are no barriers despite there being very obvious ones. Not very convincing. Pretty wild theory really.