The People's Twitter.
And it would definitely not selectively censor unfashionable opinions if it were run by a government bureaucracy.
Because public sector bodies only ever maximise The Common Good.
Could even call it The International Common Good Association, just to make sure

"I don't like the fact that Twitter is so subservient to the woke elites. Let's create a massive state regulator, so that the woke elites, which have a stranglehold on most institutions... oh no, wait..."
(I mean, he's not entirely wrong. His solution may be rubbish, but there is an issue here. Twitter really does have a substantial amount of market power.
Still: There are people who I just will not ever side with, even when they have a point. And that includes Communitarians.)
As far as I can see, there are no good solutions here.
5 years ago, I would have said "Lol, Twitter is just a private company, like any other. The Guardian wouldn't publish anything by me, but that's not "censorship". They're just not letting me use their platform."
However...
...Twitter really does benefit from substantial network effects. We are on Twitter, because everyone else is also on Twitter. You can set up a rival platform, but that would be like being the only person who has a telephone: not very useful, because there's no one you can call.
Does that make Twitter a natural monopoly?
Not automatically. Before Parler came along, my prediction was: One day, a rival platform will pop up. A lot of Cool People will switch to it. Then lots of people will follow, because most people imitate what The Cool People do.
So...
...in that way, the network effect problem can be overcome. All you need is a group of high-status early adopters, ready to switch en bloc. And then, you can have a competitive marketplace. You get "competing Twitters", trying to woo the trendsetters.
And then, Parler happened 😱
Parler was doomed from the moment a couple of prominent right-wingers decided to set up shop there, because that meant that it was now perceived as a "right-wing Twitter". Since "right-wing" = low-status, that was the death sentence.
It was...
...the exact opposite of the effect I had in mind.
My prediction: some high-status people will switch ➡️ everyone will follow.
The reality: some low-status people switched ➡️ nobody followed, because nobody ever follows low-status people. Everyone tries to steer clear of them.
And THAT is the true source of Twitter's market power. It's not about the technology, or traditional network economics. It's the fact that Twitter is dominated by the sort of people who have what the Krauts call "Diskurshoheit" (=the dominance of public discourse).
The trouble is that everyone wants to be where those people are. Because those people are the ones whose views matter. There's no point in switching to a different platform if it means talking to a bunch of stranded Milo fans, whose views are fundamentally unimportant.
This means that the only type of platform that could challenge Twitter's market power would be a platform that attracts Twitter's high-status users.
And how could you do that? Why, by out-twittering Twitter. By being like Twitter, except more so. Woker, greener, more communist.
If people like Owen Jones and Ash Sarkar said "We've had it with Twitter; we're switching to platform X" - X would have a very good chance of success. Because millions would follow them.
But nobody else has that sort of cultural power.
And what sort of platform would they choose?

More from Government

How does a government put a legislation on 'hold'? Is there any constitutional mechanism for the executive to 'pause' a validly passed legislation? Genuine Koshan.


So a committee of 'wise men/women' selected by the SC will stand in judgement over the law passed by


Here is the thing - a law can be stayed based on usual methods, it can be held unconstitutional based on violation of the Constitution. There is no shortcut to this based on the say so of even a large number of people, merely because they are loud.


Tomorrow can all the income tax payers also gather up at whichever maidan and ask for repealing the income tax law? It hurts us and we can protest quite loudly.

How can a law be stayed or over-turned based on the nuisance value of the protestors? It is anarchy to allow that.
2017 https://t.co/kiqQoWR57e


https://t.co/W18nqFlLru


The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.

“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”

No. Knock it off.

Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:

1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.

2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
Parents in cities, please pay attention to the reopening details from the Whitehouse.

Biden says "small classes". What we need to understand is how they plant to accomplish this.

Through "childcare programs in schools". We see this all over states w/ closed schools.


We need to grasp that the AFT, NEA, & local unions are systematically working to decouple education from childcare.

Their vision is your child sitting on a device all day, watched by a childcare worker, being "taught" from a Teacher working from

This isn't a paranoid conspiracy theory - it is already happening in the majority of districts across the US where schools are closed.

"Learning Hubs" open, supervised by childcare workers, sometimes in the same "unsafe" school

There is NO OTHER WAY to get "small classes" without Hybrid + wraparound childcare. Your child will spend 2-3 days per WEEK supervised by low wage workers and sitting on a laptop.

Here's

Fairfax,

You May Also Like