3 ms·

Given such a division of opinions on Twitter and other platforms, I can't help but think that we need the 2 of everything: 2 Twitters, 2 Facebooks, 2 Googles, 2

Given such a division of opinions on Twitter and other platforms, I can't help but think that we need the 2 of everything: 2 Twitters, 2 Facebooks, 2 Googles, 2 Apples, 2 Netflixes, etc... Some people will be on Twitter 1 and be happy. Others will be on Twitter 2 and be just as content. The additional wrinkle is that the majority of "engagement" is coming from Group 1 and Group 2 mudslinging each other. If we separate them on two different platforms, the temperature of the conversations will go down. We already do exactly the same thing at the international football (soccer) competitions: you always sit the fans from opposing sides separately.

MiguelX413 4y ago
God no, one Twitter was already too many but it at least served it's role well as a quarantine to keep the rest of the internet safe from its users. Now that it can't even perform that role well, I don't see what use one, much less two, could possibly have.
- g42gregory 4y ago
  I suspect that Group 1 and Group 2 will have very different ideas on what is means to keep Internet safe for their corresponding constituents. Depending on whether you belong to Group 1 or Group 2, you should feel safe on your own corresponding platform. Now, if someone insists on telling the opposing group how they should be running their lives, this particular ability will be greatly reduced.
  - MiguelX413 4y ago
    I don't understand the problem with telling people how to live their lives. I don't see what's wrong with vegans, pro-lifers, and many groups from all parts of the spectrum trying to stop people from doing things they believe to be wrong. I'd rather people try to stop people from doing things they see to be wrong rather than nobody stop people from doing bad things. I say this as someone who isn't a member of either of those groups. Their premises may be wrong but that's not a good reason to not fight against what one sees as immoral. I don't know what you mean by “safe” either. I'm just referring to the unbearable culture of Twitter being contained on Twitter. Though I recently have started to suspect that it's really only sustainable by the algorithms of Twitter and not people alone.

MiguelX413 4y ago

God no, one Twitter was already too many but it at least served it's role well as a quarantine to keep the rest of the internet safe from its users. Now that it can't even perform that role well, I don't see what use one, much less two, could possibly have.

g42gregory 4y ago
I suspect that Group 1 and Group 2 will have very different ideas on what is means to keep Internet safe for their corresponding constituents. Depending on whether you belong to Group 1 or Group 2, you should feel safe on your own corresponding platform. Now, if someone insists on telling the opposing group how they should be running their lives, this particular ability will be greatly reduced.
- MiguelX413 4y ago
  I don't understand the problem with telling people how to live their lives. I don't see what's wrong with vegans, pro-lifers, and many groups from all parts of the spectrum trying to stop people from doing things they believe to be wrong. I'd rather people try to stop people from doing things they see to be wrong rather than nobody stop people from doing bad things. I say this as someone who isn't a member of either of those groups. Their premises may be wrong but that's not a good reason to not fight against what one sees as immoral. I don't know what you mean by “safe” either. I'm just referring to the unbearable culture of Twitter being contained on Twitter. Though I recently have started to suspect that it's really only sustainable by the algorithms of Twitter and not people alone.