4 ms·

> 2) Is it really that much of a "public square"? Since only about 22% of USA adults are on Twitter; and 80 percent of the tweets come from 10 percent of users

by zardo 5y ago

> 2) Is it really that much of a "public square"? Since only about 22% of USA adults are on Twitter; and 80 percent of the tweets come from 10 percent of users (thus 2.2% of the USA population. That sounds pretty sizable to me. "Public Square" is an analogy to a physical space where people would gossip and politic, but that doesn't mean everyone in town engaged in it, and popularity isn't a new thing, it would always be the case that a small number of voices have outsized reach.

krapp 5y ago
> "Public Square" is an analogy to a physical space where people would gossip and politic I don't think so, as that analogy would mean literally any space where people gather is a public square, including my living room. Typically what's implied by "public square" is that the space is owned by a government, and the public by proxy, and (in the US at least) is bound by Constitutional restrictions that private entities and citizens aren't. When people say things like "Twitter is the de facto public square" what they're arguing is that Twitter should be considered (or converted into) public property, and no longer be allowed the free speech rights enjoyed by private enterprise, which include the ability to ban users, or moderate or delete content for any reason other than explicit legal necessity.
- rektide 5y ago
  What is your address? You're open > 12 hours a day to the public right? How many hundreds of people can you fit? It feels a weird impulse to me, this being persnickety about what is or isnt a public square. We're comparing trees and oh this one is deciduous but this one is evergreen, so these arent the same sort of assemblages... the differences dont justify overlooking the commonality: these are forests. In the macro these are the same. And the differences dont even match up. There's a number of what would be considered public squares around that are privately owned. There are court cases about planned redevelopment of some thta would end long decades of public use too, & no clear sense of how these challenges will resolve. I see the common forest of the public square in all of these, even if not all are explocitly carefully planned; that the public is there, & has been, & uses it is a more noteable distinction to me. The behavior not the legalese is the dominant characterizer to me. Its obvious that twitter is the clear & obvious site for the piblic to congregate & mingle online, without any compare. > When people say things like "Twitter is the de facto public square" what they're arguing is that Twitter should be considered (or converted into) public property, and no longer be allowed the free speech rights enjoyed by private enterprise, I do think twitter would be better as a public good, & i think any nation with democratic values whatsoever would be actively competing to create equivalent public utilities, to better protect & afford speech more securely & in perpetuity. I think what uou fear is up for debate, far from certainv calling it a town square or public square doesnt meam twitter has no rights. But perhaps we should indeed limit their corporate personhood tonsome degree, in reflection of their emerged nature as a preeminent public utility. Perhaps. I dont think you can argue against the logic just because you dont like one possible implication. I tend to think the implication is less dire than you project, but I see it all as very much up for debate, not forgone in how it would conclude.
rektide 5y ago
I cant think of anything remotely in twitters caliber where the public of the world can go to freely gossip with one another. Scientists, authors, journalists, techies.. a huge amount of really smart creative people are on this platform sharing their lives, cool things they find, & discussing topics & current affairs. I can roll up to any given conversation and join it. I cant think of anything that comes remotely, no where near as serving as effectively as the public square of the world as twitter. Dinging it because it only has x% would be modestly interesting to engage in of there was anything even faintly as connective, populated, & open to the world. There is not. Remarking that some people have outsized presence mirrors the real world: to expect the world engages in a public square exactly the same way as one another is absurd & a discredit.
Beldin 5y ago
Indeed, a public square with a potential reach of 2.2% of US population can probably not be realised anywhere locally (f2f). Back of the envelope guess is that would amount to 6-7 million people in one spot.

by zardo 5y ago

krapp 5y ago

> "Public Square" is an analogy to a physical space where people would gossip and politic I don't think so, as that analogy would mean literally any space where people gather is a public square, including my living room. Typically what's implied by "public square" is that the space is owned by a government, and the public by proxy, and (in the US at least) is bound by Constitutional restrictions that private entities and citizens aren't. When people say things like "Twitter is the de facto public square" what they're arguing is that Twitter should be considered (or converted into) public property, and no longer be allowed the free speech rights enjoyed by private enterprise, which include the ability to ban users, or moderate or delete content for any reason other than explicit legal necessity.

rektide 5y ago
What is your address? You're open > 12 hours a day to the public right? How many hundreds of people can you fit? It feels a weird impulse to me, this being persnickety about what is or isnt a public square. We're comparing trees and oh this one is deciduous but this one is evergreen, so these arent the same sort of assemblages... the differences dont justify overlooking the commonality: these are forests. In the macro these are the same. And the differences dont even match up. There's a number of what would be considered public squares around that are privately owned. There are court cases about planned redevelopment of some thta would end long decades of public use too, & no clear sense of how these challenges will resolve. I see the common forest of the public square in all of these, even if not all are explocitly carefully planned; that the public is there, & has been, & uses it is a more noteable distinction to me. The behavior not the legalese is the dominant characterizer to me. Its obvious that twitter is the clear & obvious site for the piblic to congregate & mingle online, without any compare. > When people say things like "Twitter is the de facto public square" what they're arguing is that Twitter should be considered (or converted into) public property, and no longer be allowed the free speech rights enjoyed by private enterprise, I do think twitter would be better as a public good, & i think any nation with democratic values whatsoever would be actively competing to create equivalent public utilities, to better protect & afford speech more securely & in perpetuity. I think what uou fear is up for debate, far from certainv calling it a town square or public square doesnt meam twitter has no rights. But perhaps we should indeed limit their corporate personhood tonsome degree, in reflection of their emerged nature as a preeminent public utility. Perhaps. I dont think you can argue against the logic just because you dont like one possible implication. I tend to think the implication is less dire than you project, but I see it all as very much up for debate, not forgone in how it would conclude.

rektide 5y ago

I cant think of anything remotely in twitters caliber where the public of the world can go to freely gossip with one another. Scientists, authors, journalists, techies.. a huge amount of really smart creative people are on this platform sharing their lives, cool things they find, & discussing topics & current affairs. I can roll up to any given conversation and join it. I cant think of anything that comes remotely, no where near as serving as effectively as the public square of the world as twitter. Dinging it because it only has x% would be modestly interesting to engage in of there was anything even faintly as connective, populated, & open to the world. There is not. Remarking that some people have outsized presence mirrors the real world: to expect the world engages in a public square exactly the same way as one another is absurd & a discredit.

Beldin 5y ago

Indeed, a public square with a potential reach of 2.2% of US population can probably not be realised anywhere locally (f2f). Back of the envelope guess is that would amount to 6-7 million people in one spot.