4 ms·

"single-handedly" is a red herring. None of the listed entities needs to band up with another to have a great effect on political or social outcomes.

jakelazaroff 5y ago
You’re moving the goalposts. There are plenty of entities that can unilaterally have that great effect. That doesn’t mean they’re so vital to public wellbeing that the government needs to take them over or whatever it is we’re talking about.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  I didn't set the goalposts :) I just noticed that there is a miscommunication. The miscommunication is that you presume "That doesn’t mean", whereas the whole discussion is about whether that's desired or not.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    I actually don’t think giant corporations are desirable. But that’s not the discussion people are having here. They’re claiming that Twitter is so indispensable, so woven into the fabric of everyday life that it’s tantamount to a public utility, like electricity or sewage.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      Which is a perfectly reasonable claim. Rejecting it out of hand doesn't make anyone wiser.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        Okay, but you’re acting as though it’s the same claim as “Twitter has a lot of power”. I’ve explained my reasoning against the utility claim. If you want to defend it, do so. It might be reasonable, but you haven’t offered anything other than substituting it with a different argument.
        rhn_mk1 5y ago
        It's not the same claim as being indispensible, but it's the same claim as being extremely vowen into everyday life. I think that claim reflects what is actually being discussed better. What I offer is not a defense of the claim, but a request to consider the claim seriously. In the public utility metaphor, utilities were not defined until they became defined. There's no reason to discount a possible category of "utilithing" that shares some properties with the existing one but not others. It might be that I missed your explanation (was it in a sibling thread?), but in this thread I don't see a consideration for that idea. "They are not so vital" is not an argument against it, but your personal value judgement.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        It’s in my root comment in this thread. I’m not giving my personal value judgment — it’s the value judgment of the ~75% of adults in the US who don’t use Twitter. It’s a real stretch to say that something less than a quarter of the population uses is “vital” for everyday life. How many Americans do you think go a month without electricity or sewage?
        rhn_mk1 5y ago
        > it’s the value judgment of the ~75% of adults in the US who don’t use Twitter. So 5% of all adults? Yes, I just made up that number, just like you did.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        Why would I make up a number that’s easily verifiable? https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media...
        rhn_mk1 5y ago
        You served the wrong number: this is the share of population on Twitter. I asked about the share of non-Twitterers sharing your values.

jakelazaroff 5y ago

You’re moving the goalposts. There are plenty of entities that can unilaterally have that great effect. That doesn’t mean they’re so vital to public wellbeing that the government needs to take them over or whatever it is we’re talking about.

rhn_mk1 5y ago
I didn't set the goalposts :) I just noticed that there is a miscommunication. The miscommunication is that you presume "That doesn’t mean", whereas the whole discussion is about whether that's desired or not.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  I actually don’t think giant corporations are desirable. But that’s not the discussion people are having here. They’re claiming that Twitter is so indispensable, so woven into the fabric of everyday life that it’s tantamount to a public utility, like electricity or sewage.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    Which is a perfectly reasonable claim. Rejecting it out of hand doesn't make anyone wiser.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      Okay, but you’re acting as though it’s the same claim as “Twitter has a lot of power”. I’ve explained my reasoning against the utility claim. If you want to defend it, do so. It might be reasonable, but you haven’t offered anything other than substituting it with a different argument.
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        It's not the same claim as being indispensible, but it's the same claim as being extremely vowen into everyday life. I think that claim reflects what is actually being discussed better. What I offer is not a defense of the claim, but a request to consider the claim seriously. In the public utility metaphor, utilities were not defined until they became defined. There's no reason to discount a possible category of "utilithing" that shares some properties with the existing one but not others. It might be that I missed your explanation (was it in a sibling thread?), but in this thread I don't see a consideration for that idea. "They are not so vital" is not an argument against it, but your personal value judgement.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        It’s in my root comment in this thread. I’m not giving my personal value judgment — it’s the value judgment of the ~75% of adults in the US who don’t use Twitter. It’s a real stretch to say that something less than a quarter of the population uses is “vital” for everyday life. How many Americans do you think go a month without electricity or sewage?
        rhn_mk1 5y ago
        > it’s the value judgment of the ~75% of adults in the US who don’t use Twitter. So 5% of all adults? Yes, I just made up that number, just like you did.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        Why would I make up a number that’s easily verifiable? https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media...
        rhn_mk1 5y ago
        You served the wrong number: this is the share of population on Twitter. I asked about the share of non-Twitterers sharing your values.