Amidst all this doom and gloom and supposedly inevitable failure of Musks' Twitter, I find it interesting to reason about that being a reality. What would repla

Amidst all this doom and gloom and supposedly inevitable failure of Musks' Twitter, I find it interesting to reason about that being a reality. What would replace it? Nothing. As much as I dislike Twitter overall, it's not replaceable. The main characters driving it (journalists, politicians, the like) have no other central gathering place where they would have the cultural influence that they have now. Their status is exclusively bound to Twitter and cannot be reliably replicated elsewhere. Have a look at the typical big accounts, with hundreds of thousands of followers and a decade-long history of a few dozen tweets per day. These are the 1-10% Twitter users generating 90% of activity on the network. Where would they move to? Reddit? Discord? Mastodon? Facebook? I don't think so, that would be a worse experience but more importantly, the audience won't follow. Twitter power users see themselves as creators, but they are not in the ordinary sense. A photographer or videographer produces tangible content that can stand on its own. As such, they can move it across networks. The same thing is not true for a tweet. Sure enough you can move a tiny piece of text to another social network, but it makes no sense there. It doesn't have the cultural relevance or unique twitter mechanics of amplification. When your creation is snippets of texts that generate outrage, you're in Twitter prison. Bottom line, I believe the above is what would keep Twitter alive even if temporarily takes some hits.