4 ms·

I am genuinely confused why stuff like this is such a big deal. Whatever happened to "twitter is a private company" and "twitter isn't the public square" and "i

I am genuinely confused why stuff like this is such a big deal. Whatever happened to "twitter is a private company" and "twitter isn't the public square" and "if you don't like it just make your own twitter"? Why is twitter so important now? Why does everyone care so much about the blue checks now?

_dain_ 4y ago
kto, kovo
efields 4y ago
Bc despite Twitter devolving into a completely unusable product, it’s still massively influential. If we let this slide — which we keep doing with just about every change since last summer — the slippery slope turns into a waterslide.
- colpabar 4y ago
  Idk, it seems to me that if less people took twitter seriously we’d all be better off. If NPR stops tweeting, great! Hopefully all the other journalists leave too. People seem to forget that when twitter first started it became famous because charlie sheen was smoking crack and tweeting about it. I say we go back to that and stop pretending it’s anything more.
Pxtl 4y ago
Nobody is arguing they don't have the legal right to do this (unlike the people who were screaming about First Amendment Rights before). The argument is they're being short-sighted dicks. Twitter was the social media of journalism and politics. Now it's the social media of Musk's ego.
krapp 4y ago
>I am genuinely confused why stuff like this is such a big deal. Whatever happened to "twitter is a private company" and "twitter isn't the public square" and "if you don't like it just make your own twitter"? That argument was being made to people who were opposed to the right of private platforms to moderate content, and who wanted the government to force them to act like a "public square" (using a false definition of the public square that assumes such spaces cannot be regulated) and make it illegal for them to present content using an algorithmic feed or to moderate any content beyond strict illegality. No one complaining about what Musk is doing here is also insisting that the government redefine the fundamental nature of freedom of speech and force him to do so under threat of violence. So the dichotomy you're presenting here doesn't apply. Everyone understands that Musk has the right to do what he's doing, they just disagree with him doing it.

_dain_ 4y ago

kto, kovo

efields 4y ago

Bc despite Twitter devolving into a completely unusable product, it’s still massively influential. If we let this slide — which we keep doing with just about every change since last summer — the slippery slope turns into a waterslide.

colpabar 4y ago
Idk, it seems to me that if less people took twitter seriously we’d all be better off. If NPR stops tweeting, great! Hopefully all the other journalists leave too. People seem to forget that when twitter first started it became famous because charlie sheen was smoking crack and tweeting about it. I say we go back to that and stop pretending it’s anything more.

Pxtl 4y ago

Nobody is arguing they don't have the legal right to do this (unlike the people who were screaming about First Amendment Rights before). The argument is they're being short-sighted dicks. Twitter was the social media of journalism and politics. Now it's the social media of Musk's ego.

krapp 4y ago

>I am genuinely confused why stuff like this is such a big deal. Whatever happened to "twitter is a private company" and "twitter isn't the public square" and "if you don't like it just make your own twitter"? That argument was being made to people who were opposed to the right of private platforms to moderate content, and who wanted the government to force them to act like a "public square" (using a false definition of the public square that assumes such spaces cannot be regulated) and make it illegal for them to present content using an algorithmic feed or to moderate any content beyond strict illegality. No one complaining about what Musk is doing here is also insisting that the government redefine the fundamental nature of freedom of speech and force him to do so under threat of violence. So the dichotomy you're presenting here doesn't apply. Everyone understands that Musk has the right to do what he's doing, they just disagree with him doing it.